Mohan Singh Vs. Union Territory,
Chandigarh  INSC 39 (20 February 1978)
SINGH, JASWANT PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION: 1978 AIR 1095 1978 SCR (3) 127 1978
SCC (2) 366
Criminal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974),
1973 Sections 437, 439--Special powers of High Court under S. 439(2) in
The bail granted by the Sessions to the
appellant, who was charged for an offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, was cancelled by the High Court on the ground that he moved
both the Sessions and the High Court simultaneously, without disclosing it to
the Sessions Court.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the
HELD : Refusal of bail is not an indirect
process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a
confusion regarding the rationale of bail. The real basis of bail law is as
laid down by the Supreme Court in  2 SCR 358 [127 G-H, 128A] Gurcharan
Singh & Ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration),  2 S.C.R. 358
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 118 of 1978.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment
and Order dated 11th January, 1978 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Criminal Misc. No. 129-M of 1978).
S. K. Alehta for the Appellant.
M. M. Punchhi and P. C. Bhartari for the
ORDER The offence alleged in this case
against the appellant is one under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Bail was granted by the Sessions Judge after
hearing counsel on both sides but it was cancelled by the High Court mainly for
the reason that the appellant had simultaneously moved for bail in the Sessions
as well as in the High Court without disclosing to the Sessions Court that he
had moved for bail in the High Court. This naturally made the High Court feel
that the party was not straight-forward in his dealings, with the Court. The
consequence was that the bail already granted was reversed.
Counsel for the State pressed before us that
the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima-facie (according to the
results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then
refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person
before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale, of bail.
This 128 Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan Singh
& ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1). We do not think there is
as yet any allegation against the appellant of interference with the course of
justice or other well-established grounds for refusal of bail. In this view, we
direct that the appellant be allowed to continue on bail until further orders
to the contrary passed by the Sessions Court if good grounds are made out to
(1) (1978) 2 S.C R. 358.