Dolat
Ram & Ors Vs. The State of Haryana [1994] INSC 577 (11 November 1994)
A.S.
Anand & M.K. Mukherjee, Jj.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
1.
Leave granted.
2. In
a case arising out of FIR No. 735 dated 8.11,1993, relating to the alleged
dowry death of Smt. Sunita - wife of Anil Kumar, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Rohtak granted anticipatory bail to the parents and the brother
of 'the husband of the deceased Smt. Sunira and directed that they be released
on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one
surety each of the like amount in the event of their arrest to the satisfaction
of the Arresting Officer. No bail has however been granted to the husband -
Anil Kumar. The State of Haryana filed a petition in the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted to
the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on November 12, 1993. The learned Single Judge of the
High Court by its order dated 8.9.1994, cancelled the bail observing:
"Dowry
death is a serious matter and cannot be taken so lightly. No positive finding
has been recorded by the Addl. Session Judge in his order to the effect that
the respondents and the deceased were living separately. No prima- facie case
is made out which could justify the grant of anticipatory bail. To my view of
thinking, concession of anticipatory bail granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge,
was totally uncalled for. The order dated November 12, 1993 is, therefor, set aside and the
respondents are directed to be taken into custody." The appellants are
aggrieved of the cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted to them. Hence
this appeal.
3. It
appears to us that whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not
justified in observing in the last paragraph of his order while granting
anticipatory bail "it appears that possibly these accused applicants have
been roped in falsely", at that initial stage, when possibly the
investigation was not even completed let alone, any evidence had been led at the
trial, the High Court also fell in error in cancelling the anticipatory bail
granted to the appellants for the reasons, which have been extracted by us
above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had noticed that even according to
the statement in the FIR, the appellants were living separately from the
deceased and her husband and that the factum of separate residence was also
supported by the ration card. These considerations were relevant considerations
for dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail.
4.
Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the
cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on
different basis, Very 129 cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary
for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally
speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not
exhaustive) are:
interference
or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the
concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court,
on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused
absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. Flowever,
bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without
considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears,
were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail,
already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of
the factors.
relevant
for rejecting bail in a non-bailable ease in the first instance and the
cancellation of bail already granted.
5. We
are, therefore, satisfied that the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to
the appellants, for the reasons given by the High Court, was not justified.
Nothing has been brought to our notice either from which any inference may
possibly be drawn that the appellants have in any manner, whatsoever, abused
the concession of bail during the intervening period.
6. We,
accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court
and restore that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 12the
November, 1993.
Back