LexMANJIT PRAKASH & ORS versus SHOBHA DEVI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 1141 MANJIT PRAKASH & ORS. A v. SHOBHA DEVI & ANR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1113 OF 2008 JULY 18, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439(2) - Cancellation of bail - HELD: Since High Court has not indicated any reasons for cancellation of baif. c its order cannot be maintained - Matter remitted to High Court to decide and dispose of the application afresh. Respondent no. 1 filed a criminal case against her husband and four of his family members. All the accused D were granted provisional bail on 3.5.2006. The order was confirmed on 7 .9.2006. However, the High Court can- celled the bail granted to the three appellants. In the instant appeal it was contended for the appel- lants that no reasons were given by the High Court for E cancellation of bail. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is trite law that considerations for graht of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footings. F Cancellation of bail is a harsh order and is not to be lightly resorted to because it takes away the liberty granted to an individual. But, when a person to whom bail has beeh granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threat- G ens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would . .A hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled. [para 6-7] [1143-G, 1145-D,E] Aslam Baba/al Desai v. State of Maharashtra 1992(1) 1141 H 1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A Supp. SCR 545; Ka/yan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. 2004 (7) SCC 528 - relied on. 1.2 Even though re-appreciation of the evidence as done by the Court granting bail is to be avoided, the Court B dealing with an application for cancellation of bail under ~ Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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. [para 11] [1147.;.E,F] c Puran v. Rambilas and Anr. 2001 (6) SCC 338 - referred to. 1.3 In the instant case, since the High Court has not indicated any. reasons for directing cancellatio.n of bail, the impugned order cannot be maintained and.is set a~ide. D J'he matter is remitted to the High Court. to. decide ,.the matter afresh and. dispose of the application filed. [para 14] [1148-F,G] . Case .Law Reference E · 1992 Supp1 SCR 545 relied on [para 6] 2004 (7)SCC 528 relied on [para 7] 2001 (6) sec 328 referred to [para 12] ., F CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1113 of 2008 From the final Order dated 12.7.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Misc. No·48109 of 2006 . . Gaurav Agrawal for the Apellants . G ' , Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Rajnish Prasad and Amit Pawan for the Respondents. ...... The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. MANJIT PRAKASH .& ORS. v. SHOBHA DEVI & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 1143 2. Appellants challenge the order passed by a learned A Single Judge of the Patna High Court cancelling the bail granted to them by order dated 7.9.2006 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10719 of 2006. The application for cancellation of bail was filed by the respondent No.1. Appellants 1, 2 & 3 are arrayed as accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4. Five persons were granted bail by or- B der dated 7.9.2006 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 10719 of 2006. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge directed can- cellation of bail granted to the present appellants while holding that the two others being ladiHs there was no need to cancel the bail granted to them. c 2. Though various points were urged in support of the ap- peal primarily it was submitted that no reasons have been given for canceling the bail. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-complainant submitted that though the order canceling bail has not elabo- q rately dealt with the circumstances to warrant cancellation of bail, the same is in ordr.ff. 4. The appellants and the other two in respect of whom the High Court has not interfered, were granted provisional bail by E order dated 3.5.2006 which came to be confirmed on 7.9.2006. It was stated that the husband and wife have been residing to- gether in the matrimonial home. Earlier there wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.