Ram Vs. State of Haryana  INSC 611 (24 November 1994)
A.S. (J) Anand, A.S. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J)
1995 SCC (1) 349 JT 1995 (1) 127 1994 SCALE (4)1119
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 Sunita 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 12-11-1993. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his
order dated 8-9-1994, cancelled the bail observing:
death is a serious matter and cannot be taken so lightly. No positive finding
has been recorded by the Additional Sessions 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 Additional Sessions
Judge, was totally uncalled for. The order dated 12-11-1993 is, therefore, 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.
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-appellants 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.
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 cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for
an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted.
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
351 possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the
cancellation of bail. However, 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 nonbailable
case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.
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.
accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court
and restore that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 12-11-1993.