RAM BABU TIWARI versus STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 24-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

: 
(2009] 6 S.C.R. 1012 
r 
A 
RAM BABU TIWARI 
v. 
-
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 2009) 
B 
APRIL 24, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
~ 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 439 -
c Cancellation of grant of bail, by High Court - Correctness of 
- Held: Order of High Court was sketchy - It did not consider 
relevant aspect in detail - Bail could not be cancelled on the 
ground that co-accused did not oppose prayer for cancellation 
of bail - Matter remitted back to High Court for consideration 
D afresh. 
_... -
In this appeal, order of High Court dir~cting 
cancellation of bail granted to the appellant, is under 
challenge. 
E 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELi): 1.1. The Parameters for grant of bail and 
cancellati!on of bail are different. But the question is if the 
1 - , 
trial court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials 
F 
or takes into account irrelevant materials whether bail can 
• 
be cancelled. Under the scheme of Cr.P.C., the application 
for canc1~llation of bail can be filed before the court 
granting the bail if it is a Court of Sessions, or the High 
Court. Even though the re-appreciation of the evidence 
G as done by the court granting bail is to be avoided, the 
.*. 
court dealing with an application for cancellation of bail 
.. .-
uls. 439(2:1 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 
H 
1012 
' -
RAM BABU TIWARI v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. 
1013 
with the court for accepting the prayer for bail. The 
A 
irrelevant materials should be of a substantial nature and 
not of a trivial nature. It is nature of the acts which are to 
be considered. [Paras, 6, 10 and 12) [1015-C-E; 1017-E-
F; 1018-E-F] 
Ka/yan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu 
Yadav and Anr. 2004 (7) SCC 528; Puran v. Rambilas and 
.,.. 
Anr. 2001 (6) SCC 338, referred to. 
B 
1.2. The order of the High Court was very sketchy. 
The High Court did not consider the relevant aspect in 
C 
detail. Only because the co-accused did not actually 
oppose the prayer for cancellation of bail, that could not 
have been a ground to cancel bail ·granted to the 
appellant. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment 
is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High 
D 
-- > 
Court for fresh consideration. [Paras 13 and 14) [1018-G-
H; 1019-A) 
Case Law Reference: 
2004 (7) SCC 528 
Referred to. 
2001 (6) SCC 338 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
Para 11 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 829 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2008 of the High 
Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in Misc. Crl. C. No. 8760 of 2008. 
R.P. Gupta, J. Bey and Parmanand Gaur for the Appellant. 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 
E 
F 
G 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
H 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, 
y-
Jabalpu1· Bench, directing cancellation of bail granted to the 
-
appellart 
' 
--
3. Background facts are as follows: 
8 
ThE! present appellant along with two others was arrested 
in conm~ction with Crime no.149/2008 registered at KotWali 
Sehore, for alleged commission of offence punishable under 
Section:; 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 
.. 
c 
1860 (ir sh.ort the 'IPC'). 
'· 
Appellant prayed for bail in terms of Section 439 of the 
J 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'), which 
was allciwed by order dated 27.5.2008 passed by learned 1st 
Additional Sessions Judge, Sihore. An application for 
D 
cancell~ttion for bail was filed by the present respondent no.2. 
Prosecution version is that in the wake of a property 
*'. 
... 
dispute present appellant had hired with the assistance of one 
Deepak Harnath Singh, respondent nos. 2 and 3 for killing 
E 
Shyam Tiwari who is his real brother. The shot fired by the 
present appellant hit one Ravi @ Rinku in his neck. 
.. 
Thi~ cancellation was prayed on the following grounds: 
(a) 
There is specific allegation against appellant that 
i . 
F 
it was he who had fired the shot. 
(I:) 
The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have consistent 
criminal antecedent. 
(c) 
After being released on bail, appellant by making 
G 
a telephonic call to Nikhlesh Tiwari, nephew of 
Shyam Tiwari, had threatened to kill him in case 

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