9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Powers of the Court to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. 2. Grounds for cancellation of bail. 3. Application of legal principles and precedents in canceling bail. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Powers of the Court to Cancel Bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973: The Revision Application raises an important question regarding the powers of the Court to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. The prosecution's case involved the interception of a truck containing contraband snake skins and fruits, leading to the arrest of certain individuals and the implication of the petitioner in a widespread conspiracy to smuggle snake skins. The petitioner was initially granted bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. However, the D.R.I. sought cancellation of this bail, leading to the Sessions Court's order for the petitioner's arrest and judicial custody. The Sessions Judge's order was criticized for its lack of clarity and for being prone to create confusion and complications. 2. Grounds for Cancellation of Bail: The grounds for cancellation of bail were debated extensively. The prosecution argued that the petitioner was a previous convict involved in smuggling activities and that his release on bail could hamper the investigation, particularly in tracing an accomplice, Mangal Chand Bhandari. The learned Sessions Judge supported the cancellation of bail, citing the petitioner's alleged role as the "master-mind" behind a serious conspiracy. However, the High Court noted that the learned Sessions Judge's observation regarding the national economy was unsupported and unwarranted. The High Court emphasized that the cancellation of bail requires careful consideration and should not be based on mere allegations or unsupported observations. 3. Application of Legal Principles and Precedents in Canceling Bail: Shri Jethmalani, representing the petitioner, argued that the offence, though non-bailable, was not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and thus bail should be the rule. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), 1978 CriLJ 129, which emphasized that bail should not be denied unless exceptional circumstances are present. He also distinguished between rejection of bail and cancellation of bail, arguing that the latter requires supervening circumstances that make it no longer conducive to a fair trial. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Gandhi's case, which stated that the power to cancel bail should be exercised with care and circumspection and only if there is a preponderance of probabilities that the accused is interfering with the course of justice. The High Court also considered the guidelines provided by the Madras High Court in Public Prosecutor v. George Williams, AIR 1951 Mad 1042, which listed five grounds for cancellation of bail, including committing the same offence while on bail, hampering the investigation, tampering with evidence, absconding, and committing acts of violence. In the present case, the prosecution's grounds for cancellation were the petitioner's past conduct and the need to trace an accomplice. The High Court found these grounds insufficient to justify the cancellation of bail, noting that the petitioner had complied with all bail conditions and that there was no evidence of tampering or interference with the investigation. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the learned Sessions Judge erred in canceling the bail. The order of the learned Sessions Judge was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail with specific conditions, including attending the D.R.I. office daily and not leaving Greater Bombay without the Court's permission. The High Court emphasized the need for careful consideration and circumspection in exercising the power to cancel bail, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and other precedents.
|
