2005 (4) TMI 645 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail cancellation based on alleged threats to witnesses and suppression of material facts.
2. Consideration of grounds for cancellation of bail.
3. Allegation of absconding and interference in trial by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the High Court's order cancelling his bail, citing that the court did not follow established principles for bail cancellation. The complainant alleged that the appellant, an influential figure, had manipulated the investigation and posed a threat to witnesses. However, the complaints of threats were lodged while the appellant was still in custody, undermining their credibility. The appellant also argued that the delay in filing charges against him was due to personal animosity with a police officer, not lack of evidence against him.

2. The High Court's decision to cancel bail was based on the alleged threats and the appellant's failure to disclose the conviction of co-accused in the connected trial. The court also noted that the appellant was described as an active assailant in the trial judgment. However, the appellant contended that he had disclosed the co-accused's conviction in his bail application, shifting the responsibility to the prosecution for not highlighting this fact. The Supreme Court found these grounds insufficient for bail cancellation, emphasizing the need for post-bail conduct to justify such action.

3. The respondent argued that the appellant had been absconding, raising concerns about his potential interference in the trial. Contrary to this claim, records showed that the appellant had been actively participating in legislative activities and had not been listed as an absconder in previous charge-sheets. The Supreme Court dismissed the absconding allegation, highlighting the lack of substantial evidence against the appellant over the years.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's bail cancellation order. However, to address concerns of interference, the appellant was restricted from entering a specific jurisdiction except for trial attendance. The Court clarified that its observations were preliminary and should not influence the trial court's proceedings.