GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 06-12-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
358 
GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. 
V. 
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 
December 6, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND v. D. TuLzAPURKAR, JJ.] 
Collstitution of India-Art. 136-When Supre1ne Court would interfere with 
order cuncelling bail by High Court. 
Crhninal Procedure Code 1973-Sections 437 439 and 497-Bail-Princi~ 
pies .for grant of-Cancellation of. 
' 
The prosecution is launched against the appellant accused who are ranging. 
from the Deputy Inspector General of Police to the Police Constables on the 
ground that they were party to a criminal conspiracy to kill Sunder and caused 
bis death by drowning him in Yamuna River pursuant to the conspiracy. Sunder 
was said to be a notorious dacoit who was wanted in several cases of murder 
and dacoity alleged to have been committed by him in Delhi and elsewhere. 
It is stated that by May 1976 Sunder became a security risk for Sanjay GandhL 
The appellants were arrested in connection with the prosecution between 10th 
June 1977 and 12th July 1977. The Magistrate declined to release them on 
bail. 
Thereafter, they approached the Sessions Judge under s. 439(2) of the 
Cr. P. C. 1973. The Sessions Judge granted bail to ~he 4 appellants. 
There-
after the State moved the High Court under s. 439 (2) against the order of the 
Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail. The Sessions Judge while granting. 
the bail held that the arguments of the prosecution that if the appellants were 
relea<:.ed on bail they \vould misuse their freedom to tamper with the witnesses 
\Vas not quite convincing. 
The learned Judge further held that there was little 
to gain by tampering with the witnesses who have themselves already tampered 
with their evidence by making contradictory statements in respect of the same 
transaction. The learned Judge also held that there was inordinate delay in 
registering the case and that there was little probability of the appellants fleeing 
from justice or tampering with the witnesses and also having regard to the 
character of evidence the court was inclined to grant bail to the appellants. 
The High Court while setting aside the orders of the Sessions Judge observed 
that considering the nature of the offence, character of the evidence, including 
the fact that some of the witnesses during preliminary enquiry did 
not fully 
support the prosecution case, the reasonable _apprehension of witnesses being 
tampered with and all other factors relevant for consideration for 
grant or 
refusal of bail in a non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment 
for life there was no option but to cancel the bail. 
In an appeal by special leave, the appellants contended 
( 1) The old Criminal Procedure Code refers to an accused being "brought 
before a Court" whereas s. 437(1) of Cr. P. C. 1973 
uses 
the expression 
"brought before a Court other than the High Court or a Court of Sessions". 
Therefore, the limitations laid down in s. 497 ( 1) to the effect that "shall not 
be so relevant if there appears reasonable ground for believing that he has been 
guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life" are not 
in the way of the High Court or the Court of Sessions in dealing with bail 
under s. 439 of the Code. 
(2) Under section 439(2) the High Court could ~ot entertain application 
for cancellation of bail and it v.ras only the court of sess1ons that was competent_ 
ll' 
to deal with the matter. 
(3) On facts the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) The change in language u/s. 437(1) does not affect the true 
legal position. 
Under the new Code as well as the old one an accused after 
being arrested is produced before the Magistrate. There is no provision in the. 
• 
,-,• 
• 
GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE (Goswami, J.) 
359 
'Code whereby an accused is for the first time produce_d after ini~ial arrest 
1
~efb.r~ 
the Court of Sessions or before the High Court. It. is .not P?SStble to ho . t a 
the Sessions Judge or the High Court certainly en1oy1ng wide powe~s will. ~e 
oblivious of the considerat.ions of the .Iikel!hood of fthe 
1
.~ccuse[t63
bec~:f> ~]
1 Y 
·of an offence punishable with death or 1mpnsonnlent or I e. 
• 
(2) A Court of Sessions cannot cancel a bail ~vhich ~as already been granted 
by the High Court unless ne\V circumstances. anse dun~g the progr~ss of the 
trial after the accused person has been admitted to bail by the HI~ .fo~~t. 
If, however, a Court of Sessions
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.