BHURI BAI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 190 · Decided: 11-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
BHURI BAI
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.1972 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 11, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439(2) – Cancellation
of bail – Power of – Held: Power of cancellation of bail should be
exercised with extreme care and circumspection – Such cancellation
cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part
of the accused before granting bail – Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already
granted – Unless a strong case based on any supervening event is
made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with
– Cancellation is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of
the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper
trial of the criminal case – On facts, it had not been the case of the
prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had
comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions
imposed on her, thus, the order setting aside the bail granted to the
appellant cannot be approved, and is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the peculiar circumstances of the case,
particularly for the fact that the deceased left a minor child and
none except the appellant was available in the family to look after
the child, it is equally difficult to say that the appellant has been
an absconder or a fugitive who had been intentionally running
away from the process of law. The challenge thrown at the relevant
time by Covid-19 pandemic also remains a factor which cannot
be ignored altogether. Further, the fact that the appellant is a
lady in 55 years of age cannot be ignored. [Para 16][196-B-C]
1.2 The order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
though had not been explicit on all the surrounding factors but
then, the facts were indeed taken into consideration that two of
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 190
190
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
the co-accused were granted pre-arrest bail whereas the other
co-accused person, husband of the appellant, was granted regular
bail. In the given set of facts and circumstances, if the trial court
was satisfied that the appellant was entitled to be given the
concession of bail while putting her to specific terms and
conditions, the order so passed had neither been suffering from
any fundamental error nor there was any other material factor for
which the bail granted to the appellant was to be annulled. Even
if the High Court had its reservations in the order so passed by
the trial court granting bail to the appellant, particularly when
the fact of long absence of the appellant was not adverted to, it
was yet required to be taken note of by the High Court that the
power being exercised was not that of a regular appeal or revision
but, it was that of cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC.
[Para 17, 18][196-D-G]
1.3 It remains trite that normally, very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel
the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based
on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is
not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439(2) CrPC. [Para
19][196-G-H]
1.4 It had not been the case of the prosecution that the
appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in
any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. Power
of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and
circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely
for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before
granting bail. In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail
cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against
the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been
granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged
only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be
counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal
case. In the matter of the present nature, over-expansion of the
issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor
was not stated by the trial court in its order granting bail. Thus,
in totality of the circumstances, the order impugned setting aside
the bail granted to the appellant cannot be approved. The
BHURI BAI v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
impugned order passed by the High Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.