SUBODH KUMAR YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 15-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 10 S.C.R. 574 
A 
SUBODH KUMAR YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 15, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 439 - Bail -
Cancellation of - Relevant factors to be considered -
c Sessions judge canceling bail granted to applicant by 
Magistrate - High Court upholding the same - Held: Justified 
- Magistrate exercised discretion vested in him u/s.437 
Cr.P.C. with oblique motive and in an arbitrary manner- He 
took into consideration irrelevant documents which were never 
~ 
D referred to in the complaint - Sessions Judge justified in 
drawing adverse inferences against Magistrate and holding 
that the said order was passed for considerations other than 
judicial. 
E 
Respondent no. 2 filed complaint u/s. 498A IPC 
against the appellant and others. Appellant surrendered 
before the court and filed application for bail. The 
Magistrate granted bail. However, the Sessions Judge 
cancelled the bail granted to the appellant. Single Judge 
F 
of the High Court upheld the order. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. While considering the factors relevant for 
G consideration of bail already granted vis-a-vis the factors 
relevant for rejection of bail, for cancellation of bail, 
" 
conduct subsequent to release on bail and supervening 
circumstances will be relevant. It is not intended to restrict 
the power of a superior court to cancel bail in appropriate " 
H 
574 
SUBODH KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR & 
575 
ANR. 
+ 
cases on other grounds. If a superior court finds that the 
A 
court granting bail had acted on irrelevant material or if 
... , 
there was non-application of mind or failure to take note 
of any statutory bar to grant bail, or if there was manifest 
impropriety, an order for cancellation of bail can in fact 
be made. [Paras 9) [581-B-D] 
B 
2.1. Appellant himself and others had moved the 
' 
Sessions Court by way of filing revision for quashing 
summons issued by the Magistrate and, therefore, the 
"' 
Sessions Judge had called for the record from the court 
of Judicial Magistrate. On October 19, 2002, the appellant c 
had, all of a sudden decided to surrender before the 
Judicial Magistrate and presented a bail'application. The 
~ ..... 
Magistrate found that the record of the case was lying in 
Sessions Court with reference to the revision, which was 
-' 
filed by the appellant and others. The Magistrate did not D 
think it proper to wait at .-:II and by passing a judicial order 
called for the record pending in a superior court. In view 
of the judicial order passed by the Magistrate, the 
Registry of the Sessions Court forthwith sent the record 
of the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, 
E 
the Magistrate proceeded to hear the bail application 
submitt~d by the appellant. In the order summoning the 
'· 
record, it was nowhere indicated by the Magistrate that 
the application submitted by the appellant would be 
heard on the same day-October 19, 2002. The advocate 
F 
for the complainant was not put on notice at all and, 
therefore, could not remain present at the time when the 
bail application was taken up for hearing. The Magistrate 
considered the documents produced by the counsel for 
the appellant. Admittedly those documents· were G 
......... 
subsequent in point of time to taking of cognizance. After 
considering those documents, the Magistrate enlarged 
the appellant on bail. The undue haste exhibited by the 
Magistrate as well as his decision to hear the bail 
.... 
application on the same day without hearing the counsel 
H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A for the complainant, compelled the Sessions Judge to 
... 
draw adverse inferences against the Magistrate. On facts 
and in the circumstances of the case, Sessions Judge 
' ... 
was justified in drawing adverse inferences against the 
Magistrate and holding that the order granting bail was 
B passed by the Judicial Magistrate for considerations 
other than judicial. This finding of fact has been 
confirmed by the High Court. [Para 11] [581-F-H; 582-A-
F] 
~ 
2.2. The findings recorded by the Sessions Judge 
' ' 
c and the High Court make it clear that the Magistrate had 
exercised discretion vested in him u/s. 437 Cr.P .C. with 
oblique motive. The Magistrate was apparently bent upon 
granting bail to the appellant and, therefore, not only 
decided to hear the bail application pres

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