2005 (10) TMI 599 - SC - Indian Laws

Power of Magistrate to cancel the bail granted - Challenged the bail cancellation order passed - Offences under Section 120B and 307 IPC - HELD THAT - The plea of the appellant's learned Counsel is that if the Sessions Court had granted bail, the order of cancellation of such bail should also have been passed by the Sessions Court or by any superior Court and not by the learned Magistrate who is not empowered to cancel it. As a general proposition, the plea raised by the appellant is correct. It is equally true that the accused who is on bail, should be heard before an order of cancellation of bail is passed by the Court. The order of the Sessions Court shows that the learned Magistrate has been empowered to consider the question of violation of any of the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court and was given powers to pass appropriate orders. The plea raised by the appellant's learned Counsel is that when the learned Magistrate had no such power, the Sessions Court was not empowered to invest that power in the Magistrate. We do not find any force in this contention. The superior court can always give directions of this nature and authorise the subordinate court to pass appropriate orders and the trial Magistrate would be the competent authority to decide whether any condition had been violated by the person who had been released on bail. When there is a specific direction to pass appropriate orders as if the conditions for granting bail had been imposed by the learned Magistrate himself, the impugned Order is legal and valid. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was in prison in connection with another case and that is why he could not appear before the Investigating Officer, does not appear to be true as such a plea was not raised before the learned Magistrate. The learned Counsel for the appellant only contended before the learned Magistrate that he apprehended assault at the hands of the police and, therefore, he refrained from making himself available before the investigating officer. The learned Magistrate rightly rejected this plea. The Order passed by the learned Magistrate was correct and the High Court has rightly rejected the Revision filed by the appellant. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by a Single judge of the High Court of Kerala regarding bail conditions.
2. Interpretation of the power to cancel bail granted by the Sessions Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
3. Authority of the Magistrate to cancel bail granted by the Sessions Court.
4. Requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing before cancellation of bail.
5. Compliance with bail conditions and validity of reasons for non-compliance.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the order passed by a Single judge of the High Court of Kerala regarding bail conditions set by the Sessions Court. The bail conditions included executing a bond with sureties, reporting to the Investigating Officer on specific days, and restrictions on entering certain areas without permission.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Court had the power to cancel bail granted by any subordinate court. The power to cancel bail is extensive and allows for arrest and custody as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. The appellant contended that only the Sessions Court or a superior court could cancel bail granted by the Sessions Court, not a Magistrate. However, the Court found that the Sessions Court had empowered the Magistrate to consider violations of bail conditions and take appropriate action, which was deemed legally valid.

4. Emphasizing the importance of due process, the Court reiterated that the accused must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before bail is cancelled, as established in previous judgments.

5. The appellant's explanation for non-compliance with bail conditions, citing fear of police assault, was rejected by the Magistrate. The Court upheld the Magistrate's decision, stating that the reasons presented were insufficient and the appellant failed to raise the issue of being in prison for another case as a valid excuse.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the judgment. The Court upheld the legality of the Magistrate's order to cancel bail based on non-compliance with conditions and affirmed the High Court's decision to reject the revision filed by the appellant.