MEHBOOB DAWOOD SHAIKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 554 · Decided: 16-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MEHBOOB DA WOOD SHAIKH 
V. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
JANUARY 16, 2004 
(DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 439(2)-Bail- Cancellation 
of-Considerations for-Bail granted to appellant, cancelled on ground that 
he had threatened the witnesses of dire consequences-Affidavit of Police 
Inspector filed in Court indicating the threat given to complainant in court 
premises and registration of case under Section 188 !PC in relation to the 
threat-Held, nothing having been urged by way of reply to the affidavit, 
appellant cannot make a grievance that no enquiry was made to find out the 
truth or otherwise of the statement made in the affidavit-As there were 
allegations prima facie showing that the witnesses have been threatened, a 
ground for cancellation of bail did exist. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Subsequent application for grant or cancellation of bail-Held, it is 
desircble that application be placed before the same Judge who had passed 
the earlier order-However, where the cancellation is sought for on grounds 
different from those which existed at the time of granting bail, the conventional 
practice of placing the matter before the same Judge need not be followed 
Precedent-What constitutes-Principles elucidated 
Appellant was accused of instigating a mob to assault and murder 
and was in custody for more than 7y, months. He moved an application 
for grant of bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge. Thereafter, a 
bail. application was moved before High Court, which was al.lowed. 
Subsequently, State filed an application for cancellation of bail on the 
ground that the appellant misused the liberty earlier granted to him by 
threatening the witness of dire consequences. The application was 
supported by an affidavit of Police Inspector indicating the threat given 
to complainant in court premises. The Single Judge hearing the said· 
554 
\ 
l 
)> 
-... " 
r, 
-
MEHBOOB DAWOOD SHAIKH 1·.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
5 55 
application cancelled the bail. Hence the present appeal. 
A 
On behalf of appellant, it was submitted that bail granted should not 
have been cancelled merely on the statement made by the counsel 
appearing for the State about alleged threat and an enquiry as to the 
correctness of the allegations ought to have been made; and that 
cancellation of bail application should have been heard by the Judge who B 
had earlier granted the bail. 
It was submitted on behalf of State that this was a fit case for 
cancellation of bail as the appellant tried to interfere with the course of 
justice by threatening the witnesses; that a case had been registered on C 
the basis of accusations made by one of the witnesses and proceedings 
under Section 188 IPC had been initiated. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. When a person to whom bail has been granted either D 
tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with 
evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities 
which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be 
cancelled. 1560-H; 561-AI 
Aslam Baba/al Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 119921 4 SCC 272, E 
referred to. 
1.2. It is trite law that the considerations for grant of bail and 
cancellation of bail stand on different footings. Cancellation of bail is a 
harsh order beca.use it takes away the liberty of an indil'idual granted to 
him and is not to be lightly resorted to. Mere assertion of an alleged threat F 
to witnesses should not be utilized as a ground for cancellation of bail, 
routinely. The Court before which such allegations are made should in 
each case carefully weigh the acceptability of the allegations and pass 
orders as circumstances warrant in law. Such matters should be dealt with 
expeditiously so that actual interference with the ordinary and normal G 
course of justice is nipped at the bud and an irretrievable stage is not 
reached. 1559-E; 560-G, 561-F, GI 
1.3. In the instant case it is undisputed that an affidavit of Police 
Inspector was filed which indicated the threat gi,·en to the complainant 
in the court premises. In the affidavit it has been clearly mentioned that H 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] I S.C.R. 
A a case was registered under Section 188 IPC in relation to the threat. 
)> 
/ 
Nothing seems to have been urged by way of reply to the affidavit or the 
truth or otherwise tu the contents thereof before the High Court. 

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