9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1549 - SC - Indian LawsCancellation of Bail - principal Sessions Judge did not consider the material available on record before granting bail to the Appellants - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the Accused or takes into account irrelevant material which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the Accused the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. The petition filed for cancellation of bail is both on the grounds of illegality of the order passed by the Sessions Court and the conduct of the Appellants subsequent to their release after bail was granted. The complaint filed by one Bojja Ravinder to the Commissioner of Police Karimnagar is placed on record by Respondent No. 2. It is stated in the complaint that the Appellants were roaming freely in the village and threatening witnesses - the allegations made are vague. There is no mention about which Accused out of the 15 indulged in acts of holding out threats to the witnesses or made an attempt to tamper with the evidence. The High Court was not right in cancelling the bail of the Appellants. The orders passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail cannot be termed as perverse. The complaint alleging that the Appellants were influencing witnesses is vague and is without any details regarding the involvement of the Appellants in threatening the witnesses - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Grant of bail by the Principal Sessions Judge. 2. Petition for cancellation of bail filed before the High Court. 3. Consideration of factors while granting bail. 4. Grounds for cancellation of bail. 5. Examination of the order granting bail by the Sessions Court. 6. Allegations of influencing witnesses against the Appellants. Grant of Bail by Principal Sessions Judge: The Respondent lodged a complaint under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, alleging the Appellants attacked and caused the death of her husband. The Principal Sessions Judge granted bail to the Appellants with specific conditions, including regular appearance at the police station and non-influence of evidence. Petition for Cancellation of Bail Before High Court: The Respondent filed a petition for cancellation of bail, citing that the Principal Sessions Judge did not consider all relevant material before granting bail. The High Court allowed the cancellation, noting the criminal antecedents of the Appellants and the alleged threats to witnesses post-bail. Consideration of Factors While Granting Bail: The Supreme Court emphasized factors to consider while granting bail, such as the gravity of the crime, character of evidence, and likelihood of the Accused tampering with evidence. Each case's peculiar factual scenario must be evaluated, and a prima facie case against the Accused is sufficient for bail. Grounds for Cancellation of Bail: The Court outlined grounds for bail cancellation, including misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, and threats to witnesses. Cancellation of bail is a severe measure interfering with individual liberty and must be justified. Examination of Order Granting Bail by Sessions Court: The Supreme Court reviewed the Sessions Court's bail order and found it not perverse or based on irrelevant considerations. The Sessions Court was aware of the completed investigation and the lack of evidence tampering likelihood. Allegations of Influencing Witnesses Against the Appellants: The complaint alleging the Appellants influenced witnesses post-bail lacked specificity and details. The Supreme Court held that vague allegations without clear involvement details are insufficient to cancel bail. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment, as the bail granting orders were not deemed perverse, and the allegations of influencing witnesses were vague and lacked specific details.
|
