[ 12 ]
Supreme Court of India
Rasiklal vs Kishore on 20 February, 2009
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009
However, it is well settled that bail granted to an accused with reference to bailable offence can be cancelled only if the accused (1) misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (2) interferes with the course of investigation, (3) attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses, (4) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (5) attempts to flee to another country, (6) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (7) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.
(Page 3)
[ 13 ]
Supreme Court of India
Dolat Ram vs State Of Haryana on 24 November, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 349, JT 1995 (1) 127
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 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 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.
[ 14 ]
Supreme Court of India
State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1248 of 2005
The decisions in Dolat Ram and Bhattacharjee cases (supra) relate to applications for cancellation of bail and not appeals against orders granting bail. In an application for cancellation, conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone are relevant.
(Page 6)
[ 15 ]
Supreme Court of India
Prakash Kadam & Etc. Etc. vs Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr. on 13 May, 2011
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1174-1178_OF 2011
17. However, we are of the opinion that that is not an absolute rule, and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In considering whether to cancel the bail the Court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. If there are very serious allegations against the 10
accused his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. Moreover, the above principle applies when the same Court which granted bail is approached for canceling the bail.
18. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of the bail. That factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.
[ 16 ]
Supreme Court of India
State Through Delhi ... vs Sanjay Gandhi on 5 May, 1978
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 961, 1978 SCR (3) 950
..... The issue of cancella- tion of bail can only arise in criminal cases, but that does not mean that every incidental matter in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt like the guilt of the accused. .....
----------
----------
----------
..... Indeed, proof of facts by preponderance of probabilities as: in a civil case is not foreign to criminal jurisprudence .....
----------
----------
----------
..... The same standard of proof as in a civil case applies to proof of incidental issues involved in a criminal trial like the cancellation of bail of an accused. The prosecution, therefore, can establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses. Proving by the test of balance of probabilities that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary for the prosecution to do in order to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail.
(Page 7, 8)
..... The power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extra-ordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases when, by a preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. Refusal to exercise that wholesome power in such cases, few though they may be, will reduce it to a dead letter and will suffer the Courts to be silent spectators to the subversion of the judicial process. We might as well wind up the Courts and bolt their doors against all than. permit a few to ensure that justice shall not be done.
The power to cancel bail was exercised by the Bombay High Court in Madhukar Purshottam Jondkar v. Talab Haji Hussain(1) where the accused was charged with a bailable offence. The test adopted by that Court was whether the material placed before the Court was “such as to lead to the conclusion that there is a strong prima facie case that if the accused were to be allowed to be at large he would tamper with the prosecution witnesses and impede the course of justice”. An appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment of the Bombay High Court was dismissed by this Court. In Gurcharan Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration,(2) while confirming the order of the High Court cancelling the bail of the accused, this Court observed that the only question which the Court had to consider at that stage was whether “there was prima facie case made out, as alleged, on the statements of the witnesses and on other materials”, that “there was a likelihood of the appellants tampering with the prosecution witnesses”. It is by the application of this test that we have come to the conclusion that the respondent’s bail ought to be cancelled.
(Page 10)
[ 17 ]
Supreme Court of India
Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed vs Mehmood Hussain And Anr
on 18 May, 2007
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 2371 of 2006
8. ..... But learned counsel for the respondents rightly submitted that even if no condition is specifically stipulated, the accused, while on bail, is not supposed to tamper with evidence.
[ 18 ]
Supreme Court of India
Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2004
CASE NO. : Appeal (crl.) 64 of 2004
Learned counsel for the appellant is correct on principles that mere assertion of an alleged threat to witnesses should not be utilized as a ground for cancellation of bail, routinely. Otherwise, there is ample scope for making such allegation to nullify the bail granted. The Court before which such allegations are made should in each case carefully weigh the acceptability of the allegations and pass orders as circumstances warrant in law. Such matters should be dealt with expeditiously so that actual interference with the ordinary and normal course of justice is nipped at the bud and an irretrievable stage is not reached.
(Page 4)
