DR. NARENDRA K AMIN versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 1149 · Decided: 28-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 1149 
DR. NARENDRA KAMIN 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2008) 
APRIL 28, 2008 
J. 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB 
ALAM, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s. 439(2) - Cancellation of bail - HELD: Even though re-
C 
appreciation of evidence as done by the court granting ball is 
to be avoided, the Court dealing with an application for 
cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) can consider whether 
irrelevant materials were taken into consideration - On facts, 
the court granting bail took into account irrelevant materials D 
and kept out of consideration relevant materials - Order of 
. High Court canceling bail of appellant does not suffer from 
any infirmity to warrant interference - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 136. 
The appellant was prosecuted for offences E 
punishable u/ss 302, 193, 201, 1208 IPC with the aid of 
s.34 IPC. He was granted bail by the Additional City and 
Sessions Judge. On an application by the State 
Governm.ent under s.439(2) of the Code of Criminai 
Procedure, 1973, the High Court cancelled the bail granted 
F 
to the appellant. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused it was 
contended for the appellant that parameters for grant of 
bail and cancellation of bail being entirely different, and G 
in the application for cancellation of bail there being no 
supervening circumstance, the bail should not have b~en 
cancelled only on analysis of the materials which were 
considered by the Additional City and Sessions Judge. 
1149 
H 
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is true that the parameters for grant of 
bail and cancellation of bail are different. Even though re-
appreciation of evidence as done by the Court granting 
bail is to be avoided, the Court dealing with an application. 
B for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) can consider 
whether irrelevant materials were taken into consideration. 
That is so because it is not known as to what extent the 
irrelevant materials weighed with the Court for accepting 
the prayer for bail. The irrelevant materials should be of a 
C substantial nature and not of a trivial nature. [para 6,11 
and 13] [1157-B; 1159-E-F; 1160-E] 
Puran v. Rambilas and Anr. 2001 (6) SCC 338 and 
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav 
D and Anr. 2004 (7) SCC 528 - referred to. 
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977 (2) SCC 699), 
Babu Singh v. State of UP. 1978 (1) SCC 579; State (Delhi 
Adm.) V. Sanjay Gandhi 1978 (2) sec 411, Bhagirathsinh V. 
State of Gujarat 1984 (1) SCC 284, Aslam Baba/al Desai v. 
E State of Maharashtra 1992 (4) SCC 272, Do/at Ram v. State 
of Haryana 1995 (1) SCC 349; Ramcharan v. State of M.P 
2004 (13) SCC 617; Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of 
Maharashtra 2004 (2) SCC 362; Jayendra Saraswati v. State 
of Tamil Nadu 2005 (2) SCC 13; Nityanand Rai v. State of 
F Bihar 2005 (4) SCC 178; State of UP v. Amarmani Tripathi 
2005 (8) SCC 21; and Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra 
2005 (3) sec 143 - cited. 
1.2 In the instant case, the trial Court seems to have 
been swayed by the fact that one of the deceased had 
G shady reputation and criminal antecedents. That was not 
certainly a factor which was to be considered while 
granting bail. It was nature of the acts which ought to have 
•. 
been considered. Another significant factor which was 
highlighted by the State before the High Court was that 
H an FIR allegedly was filed to divert attention from the fake 
DR. NARENDRA KAMIN v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 
1151 
ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
encounter. The same was not lodged by the Gujarat A 
Police. Thus, irrelevant materials have been taken into 
account and/or relevant materials have been kept out 
of consideration. That being so the order of granting 
bail to the appellant was certainly vulnerable. [para 13 
and 15] [1160-E-G; 1161-A-B] 
B 
jl 
1.3 Once it is found that bail was granted on 
untenable grounds, same can be cancelled. The stand that 
there was no supervening circumstance has no relevance 
in such a case. The order of the High Court does not 
suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. [para c 
14-15] [1160-H; 1161-A, B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 740 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2008 of D 
..; 
the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc . 
Application No. 12646 of 2007. 
L.N. Rao, P.S. Patwali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.