MANINDER KAUR & ORS. v. TEJA SINGH
(Normally, bail to be granted in complaint cases)
- Bench: K. T. Thomas, J.
- Appellant: Maninder Kaur and Others
- Respondent: Teja Singh
Issue
I. Whether or not bail to be granted in complaint cases.
Facts
• A complaint was lodged against the appellants Maninder Kaur and Others on the allegation that they have committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.
• The appellants remained on bail from 11.12.1997 to 06.08.1999.
• The case was brought to High Court which passed an order thereby cancelling the bail granted to the appellants.
Appellant's Contention
• The case was instituted on the basis of a complaint and the charges have not yet been framed. Therefore, the appellants must be granted bail.
Respondent's Contention
• The complaint against the appellants is lodged under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code which are non bailable offences and hence bail should not be granted.
Judgment
The Court set aside the impugned order of High Court and allowed the appellants to remain on bail pursuant to the bond already executed by them.
Relevant Paragraphs
Para 2
In a case instituted on complaint with the allegation that the appellants have committed an offence including Sec. 302 read with Sec. 304 of the Indian Penal Code, learnedsingle Judge of the High Court has cancelled the bail granted to the appellants as per the impugned order. The appellants remained on bail from 11.12.97 till the date of cancellation i.e., 6.8.99. In the meantime trial was posted and it proceeded to some extent. The High Court appears to have considered the merits of the case and deemed it necessary to set aside the order granting bail. The basic premise that the case was instituted on complaint had been overlooked by the High Court. Normally, when a case is instituted on a complaint, the court issues summons to the accused to appear in the court and on such appearance, instead of being arrested, he would apply for bail. Unless there are compelling reasons, the court would allow the accused to remain on bail, at least till the charge is framed. Even after the charge is framed the situation would be reconsidered if necessary whether bail should be cancelled or not. We do not think that the High Court should have expressed in the merits of the case particularly when the matter had to go for trial. We are now told that some witnesses were examined in the trial court. The appellants can remain on bail during the remaining period of trial subject to the condition that they shall not prevent witnesses from coming forward to give evidenced or that the accused shall not tamper with the evidence. If the prosecution feels that the appellants are not complying with the said condition, it is open to the prosecution to move for the cancellation of the bail and if the court is satisfied that the above condition is not complied with by the appellants it is open to the Sessions Court or the High Court to cancel the bail. Subject to the above observations we set aside the impugned order and allow the appellants to remain on bail pursuant to the bond already executed by them.o:p>
