LexSTATE THROUGH DELHI ADMINISTRATION versus SANJA Y GANDHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
950
STATE THROUGH DELHI ADMINISTRATION
l'.
SANJA Y GANDHI
May 5, 1978
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MVRTAZA FAZAL Au AND
B
P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
l'onstitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-Appeal by special leave agt1ins1 on
order rejecting an application for cancl'llarion of hail-Courl cannot pen11i1 ;,se
of new nuiterial against accused.
Constitution of India. 1950, Art. 136-Appeal by ,\pecial lea1·e agai11.1r an
order rejecting an application for ca11cellation cf tlu~ hail-l11tcrferenct' with
the findings of the HiRh Court 11.1· 10 H'he1'1t'r the qccused ta111pen'C! with praw·-
cution lt'itnesses_. wlit'll justified.
Bail, cancellation of-Power lo 1 a11cel bail, 111ust ht' exercised with cart' ti.nd
circ1anspection a11d in appropriate cases-Crl. P.C. (Act IT of 1974), 1973,
S. 439(2).
Bail cancellatio11 of-Gro11111/1 1n11st bear casuol co111u'ctiot1 with san1e t,Jrf
or conduct of t1ccu.~cd-Crl.P.C. {Act 2 of 1974).
1973. Ss.
439(2)
r/11.·
437(5).
Burdell of proof. exte11t uf-111 a11 application for ca11cellatio11 of bail, r.J,f
proof of the p!eri that ll'itnesst'.I' turned hostile because they were 1\'tJll over by
the accused need not he heyond a rcnsonahlt' do11ht-Evide11ce A ct, 1872-Ss :;,
101-104 r/w Crl.P.C. S. 439(2).
The respondent who \Vas arraigned as accused No. 2 in a prosecution tor
offences u/Ss. 120B r /w Ss. 409, 435 and 201 l.P.C. instituted by the
Central
Bureau of Investigation in the Court of the (]1ief Metropolitan l\fagistratc,
Delhi was granted anticipatory bail, by the High Court of Delhi.
When the
Committal Proceedings commenced in the Court of the Chief l\.fetropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi on February 20, 1978 as per the time schedule fixed by this
Court, the two. approvers in the case turned hostile, resiled from their state-
ments made to the police u/s 161 of Crl. P.C .• and retracted the confessions
made to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
An application filed for cance11a-
tion of the respondent's bnil was dismissed hy n le:irned single Judge of l~~c
Delhi High Court on 11-4-1978.
Allowing the apreal in part. the C,ourt
HELD: 1. Tn an appeal by special leave agains 1
<'•!l order
rcit;cti~11.: ;.,t\
application for can~cl1<1tion of b .... :i. no new n1aterial which was not available to
the High Court will normally be allowed to be relied upon by the State. Tt \'.'OUld
be unfair to the respondent to make use of that material without giving him
an adequate opportunity to meet it on the ground that the additional data
came into existence after the High Court gave its judgn1ent. Though.
in
appropriate cases, the Court has the po¥.rcr to take additionnl evidence. th:it
power has to be exercised sparingly. particularly in appeals
brought
unthT
Article 136 of the Cor,._,titution.
[956 D-EJ
2. In an appeal by special leave against :in order rejecting an application
for cancellation of the bail, the Iligh Court's findings are norn1ally treated
t,y
this Court as binding on issues like : \Vhether the prosecution has SlJCCeeded in
proving its case that the respondent has tampered \vith its witnesses and that
]'
.•
-~ -
•
' I
DELHI STATE 1'. SAN.JAY
GANDHI
951
·there is a reasonable apprehension that he
~viii continue to indu!ge in. that
oourse of oonduct, if he is allowed to rcnuun at large. If two \11~w~ of t~e
.evidence are reasonably possible and the High Court has taken one view, this_
Court will be disinclineJ to intcrfercc therewith
i~1 an appeal under Art. 136 of
the c:onstitution.
1958 E-FJ
Jn the instant case :-(a) the High Court has
rejected.
incontrovertible
evidence on hypertechn1cal cons1dc1 ations though 1t points. 1n one
direction
only, leaving no manner of doubt that the respondent has n1buse<l the facility
afforded to hin1 by that Court by granting anticipatory bail to him.
( b) Even
excluding
the·
Ja~t incident
in
regard
to Charan Singh which is really
first in point of time and though it is corroborated by an entry in the General
Diary, the o.thcr
evid~ncc. viz., (i)
Yad~~'s compl~int of. t~e ~4th. Feb.n1ary.
(ii) Khedkars complaint of even date, (111) Yadavs adm1ss1on in hts ev1d_ence
that he did make the written complaint in spite of th'-! fact that he had turned
hostile, (iv) the affidavits of Sat Pal Singh, Ganpat Singh and Di.i:tambar Da')
in regard to tbe inc.ident of the 17th an,I (v) !he affidavit of Sarup Singh
regarding the incident of February 28, furnish satiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.