RIZWAN AKBAR HUSSAIN SYYED versus MEHMOOD HUSSAIN AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
RIZWAN AKBAR HUSSAIN SYYED 
,,__ 
v. 
MEHMOOD HUSSAIN AND ANR. 
MAY 18, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Bail-Cancellation of bail-Held: Not to be done in routine manner-
~ 
On facts, no observation in impugned order cancelling bail that appellant 
violated specific conditions imposed on him while granting bail-Matter 
"' 
c remanded to High Court to consider afresh application for cancellation of 
bail-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S.438. 
Appellant was arrested for commission of certain offences. He filed bail 
application. CMM directed his release on bail on furnishing surety for Rs. 
D 10,000/-. Appellant was served through an official of the V.P. Road Police 
Station a notice relating to an application for cancellation of bail which was 
registered as Criminal Application before the High Court. According to the 
;: 
appellant, he was present on the date fixed for hearing, that is, 24th April, 
2006. His case was listed as item No. 52 in Court Room No. 9 and by about 
5.00 p.m. only 30 matters had been heard. On enquiry from an official of the 
E court, he was told that his matter may be listed next week and, therefore, he 
left the court premises at about 5.15 p.m. On 25th April, 2006, the impugned 
order has been passed. In fact, believing the statement of the court official, 
appellant, had engaged a counsel who made enquiries in the Registry on 28th 
April, 2006 and was told that bail was cancelled by order dated 25th April, 
F 2006. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the High Court has not 
indicated any reason for cancellation of bail. No condition was stipulated by 
the trial court while granting bail. Single Judge has observed that the 
appellant has violated the conditions imposed and has threatened the 
G complainant after he was released on bail. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HEW: The High Court seems to have taken exception for non-appearance 
)---
of the appellant at the time of hearing of the application for cancellation of 
H 
246 
--
--( 
RIZWANAKBARHUSSAINSYYEDv.MEHMOODHUSSAIN(PASAYAT,J.) 
247 
bail The reason for non-appearance has been explained by the appellant It is A 
true that in the order granting bail. There was no specific stipulation of any 
condition. In fact, in the petition for cancellation of bai~ the ·respondent No. 1 
has stated that while granting bail, no conditions were imposed. In that sense, 
the appellant is right that the High Court has erroneously observed that the 
conditions for grant of bail were violated. There was no specific condition 
. 
B 
imposed and, that was one of the grievances of the respondent No.I. But even 
if no condition is specifically stipulated, the accused, while on bail, is not 
supposed to tamper with evidence. There is no specific observation in this 
regard in the impugned order. Cancellation of bail should not be done in a 
routine manner. Where it appears to the superior Court that the Court 
granting bail acted on irrelevant materials or there was non-application of C 
mind or where Court does not take note of any statutory bar to grant of bail, 
order for cancellatfon of bail can be made. These circumstances are 
illustrative and not ex~austive. The Court considering the application for 
cancellation of bail has to take note of all relevant aspects. In the 
circumstances of the case, it is proper to remand the matter to the High Court 
for fresh consideration of the application for the cancellation of baii. 
n' 
[Para 8) [249-F-H; 250-A-C) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 768 of 
2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2006 of the High Court E 
of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. Application No. 780 of 2006. 
Abhisth Kumar and Vibhakar Mishra for the Appellant. 
Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Respondents. 
R.K. Adsure for the State. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJITPASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Bombay High Court cancelling the bail granted to the appellant, 
by exercising power under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 (for short the 'Code'). 
F 
G 
3. The facts as projected by the appellant in a nutshell are as follows: H 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
4: On 4th February, 2006 First Information Report was lodged by the 
respondent No.I alleging that he and his friend named Girish Shetty, were 
,.,._ 
attacked by the a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.