Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court rejected the State’s application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking cancellation of bail granted to a convict whose appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC is pending before the High Court.
The Court held that although three FIRs had been registered against the respondent after his release on bail, the material placed on record was not sufficient to establish that he had deliberately violated the bail conditions, attempted to threaten the complainant or witnesses, or misused his liberty in a manner warranting cancellation of bail. The Court observed: “Bail once granted ought not to be cancelled in the absence of strong, cogent and overwhelming ground.”
Facts
The respondent had been convicted by the Sessions Court for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court by filing a criminal appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court, by order dated 7 August 2019, suspended his sentence and released him on bail subject to several conditions.
The bail conditions required him to remain present before the Court, furnish his address and contact details, keep his advocate’s vakalatnama alive, report before the Sessions Court periodically, and most importantly, not directly or indirectly contact or pressurize the complainant or witnesses.
The State later filed the present application alleging that the respondent had violated these conditions. According to the State, after being released on bail, three separate offences were registered against him, including one alleging that he threatened the brother of the deceased. The State argued that this showed that he was a habitual offender and that allowing him to remain on bail could result in intimidation of witnesses or tampering with the administration of justice.
Issues
The principal issue before the Court was whether the registration of three subsequent FIRs against the respondent, after his release on bail during the pendency of a criminal appeal, was sufficient to cancel the bail earlier granted by the High Court.
The Court also had to consider whether the alleged incidents showed a deliberate attempt to pressurize the complainant or witnesses connected with the pending appeal.
State’s Arguments
The State submitted that despite clear and unambiguous bail conditions, the respondent had indulged in antisocial activities and had attempted to intimidate the brother of the deceased. It was argued that this amounted to interference with the complainant and witnesses in the pending criminal appeal.
The State further contended that the respondent had violated the conditions requiring proper conduct and prohibiting contact with or pressure upon the complainant or witnesses. On that basis, the State urged that his bail deserved to be cancelled.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent opposed the application and contended that he had not violated any bail condition. His stand was that false and frivolous complaints had been lodged against him with the object of depriving him of personal liberty.
It was also contended that the complaints were the result of business and political rivalry. In relation to one incident, the respondent claimed that he himself had been assaulted, but the police refused to register his complaint, despite his having undergone medical treatment for injuries.
Analysis Of The Law
The Court reiterated that the principles governing grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. Cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely because allegations are made after bail has been granted.
The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents holding that cancellation of bail requires very strong, cogent and overwhelming circumstances. Bail may be cancelled where the accused misuses liberty, indulges in similar criminal activity, interferes with investigation, tampers with evidence, threatens witnesses, absconds, or places himself beyond the reach of law. However, these grounds are illustrative and must be assessed on the facts of each case.
The Court further held that while misuse of liberty or violation of bail conditions can justify cancellation, the Court must first be satisfied that such violation has actually occurred. In the present case, the allegations in the subsequent FIRs were still unsubstantiated, and charges had not yet been framed in those cases.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon and discussed the following judgments:
- Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat — relied on for the principle that cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
- Mahboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra — cited for the distinction between grant of bail and cancellation of bail, and for illustrative grounds on which bail may be cancelled.
- Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab — referred to for the principle that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming reasons, though supervening circumstances may justify cancellation if they affect fair trial.
- Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh — relied on for restating that bail can be cancelled only when the accused misuses liberty, violates bail conditions, bail was granted in ignorance of statutory restrictions, or bail was procured by fraud or misrepresentation.
The Court also extracted Supreme Court discussion referring to Abdul Basit, Raghubir Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Puran, Narendra K. Amin, and Ranjit Singh, particularly on the distinction between setting aside an illegal or perverse bail order and cancelling bail due to subsequent misconduct.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that although three FIRs had been registered after the respondent was granted bail, the mere registration of those FIRs could not automatically establish violation of bail conditions.
The Court noted that for nearly four years after release on bail, there was no incident involving the respondent which could even remotely be treated as a violation of bail conditions. The first alleged incident occurred only in June 2023.
The Court further observed that from a mere reading of the FIRs, it was not possible to ascertain the actual circumstances in which the incidents occurred. The Court specifically held that the possibility of the incidents having been triggered wholly or partly by other persons could not be ruled out at this stage. It therefore refused to infer that the respondent had deliberately attempted to interfere with the complainant or witnesses.
The Court stated that every criminal case has its own peculiar scenario and projection, and the truth can only be established in a full-fledged trial. For cancellation of bail, however, the Court was only required to form a prima facie view regarding the respondent’s conduct. On that test, the material was insufficient.
The Court also emphasized that since the bail was granted during the pendency of a criminal appeal after conviction, and not during trial, the level of scrutiny for cancellation would be higher. Ordinarily, after conclusion of trial, the question of tampering with evidence or pressurizing witnesses does not arise in the same manner as it does during trial. Still, if there was material showing an attempt to influence the pending appeal by threatening the complainant or witnesses, bail could be cancelled. But no such direct connection was found in this case.
The Court observed: “The principle ‘bail as a rule and jail is an exception’ is embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” It further held that while personal liberty is not absolute, courts must strike a balance between individual liberty and societal interest and exercise power to cancel bail with great care and circumspection.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the State had failed to establish strong, cogent and overwhelming grounds for cancellation of bail. The application was therefore dismissed as devoid of merit.
However, the Court clarified that the State would remain at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law in the proceedings arising out of the three subsequent FIRs.