PURAN ETC. ETC. versus RAMBILAS AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 432 · Decided: 03-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PURAN ETC. ETC. 
... 
v. 
RAMBILAS AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
_.L_ 
MAY 3, 2001 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. V ARIAVA, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 439-Bail-Necessity of giving reasons while granting-
c Distinction between reasons for bail and merits of the case. 
Section 439(2) 
.... 
Cancellation of bail-Grounds for-Held, can be cancelled where the 
order granting bail is perverse-Case of dowry death-Evidence to show 
D complicity of the accused-Sessions Judge granted bail without giving 
reasons-High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge-Held, High 
Courts order was correct-Indian Penal Code-Sections 498-A and 304-B. 
Power of Court to cancel bail--Exercise of-Held, can be exercised on 
a petition by the prosecution, any aggrievgd party, or suo motu. 
E 
Sections 482 and 439(2)-lnterlocutory orders-Interference with-
Power under-Bail granted by the Sessions Judge-Held, can be cancelled 
;,. 
if it causes miscarriage of justice or is palpably illegal or is unjustified. 
The Appellants and the lady members of their family were charged 
.L. 
F under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IP.C. It was alleged by the prosecution 
that P got married to the deceased on 24.11.1999. Dowry was demanded from 
the family of the deceased at the time of marriage and one month prior to 
the death of the deceased. The deceased died on 2.9.2000, within a year of 
the marriage. From the scene of offence, two handkerchiefs, two small cotton 
G 
balls and one bigger cotton ball were recovered. Pieces of broken bangles 
were also found. The wire of telephone was found broken and the telephone 
was lying on the bed. There were electric injuries on the body of the deceased. 
Blisters and abrasions were also found on the body of the deceased. 
<= 
The ladies of the Appellants' family were released on bail by the 
>-.... 
H Sessions Judge by a detailed order dated 11.9.2000. The Appellants too were 
432 
• 
+ 
PURAN v. RAMBILAS 
433 
-
granted bail by the Sessions Judge on 13.11.2000. No reasons were given A 
.J.. 
by the Sessions Judge while granting bail to the Appellants • 
An appeal was filed by the father of the deceased before the High Court. 
The High Court set aside the bail granted by Sessions Judge. The Appellants, 
therefore, filed this appeal before this Court. 
B 
On behalf of the Appellants it was argued that:-
1. The Sessions J.wtge had not given any reasons while granting bail 
to the Appellants because the earlier bail order of the Sessions Judge whereby 
he had granted bail to the female members of the family of the Appellants 
giving cogent reasons, drew adverse remarks from the High Court on the c 
ground that the Sessions Judge had discussed the merits of the evidence 
~ 
collected against the accused persons in his bail order. 
2. The High Court itself has not given any reasons while setting aside 
the order of the Sessions Judge. 
D 
3. Once bail is granted it should not be cancelled until there is evidence 
·-.( 
that the conditions of th.., bail are being infringed. 
4. The prosecution has not filed any application for cancellation of bail 
and a third party could not have moved a petition for cancellation of bail. 
E 
5. High Court could not exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr. 
P.C. to interfere in an interlocutory order. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
_ .. 
HELD : 1. Bail has been cancelled by the High Court for very valid and F 
cogent reasons. Giving reasons is different from discussing merits or 
demerits. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and 
elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. 
That does not mean that whilst granting bail some reasons for prima facie 
• 
concluding why bail was being granted should not be indicated. 
G 
I 
[437-H; 438-A] 
2. The High Court has correctly not gone into merits or demerits of 
----""' 
the matter. The High Court has noted that evidence prima facie indicated 
demand of dowry. The High Court has briefly indicated the evidence on record 
and what was found at the scene of the offence. The High Court has given H 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A very cogent reasons why bail should not have been granted and why the 
unjustified erroneous order granting bail should be cancelled. (438-C-D] 
3. Generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail are, 
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of 
justice or evasion or attempt to evade the 

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