LexTALAB HAJI HUSSAIN versus MADHUKAR PURSHOTTAM MONDKAR AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l~58 FebNUlry 7. 1226 SUPREME COURT REPOH'l'S TALAB HAJI HUSSAIN 11. MADHUKAR PURSHOTTAM MONDKAR AND ANOTHER [IDllll <BHAGWATI, J. L. KAPUR and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) C1'iminal Law-Bail-Cancellation-High Oou1't's inherent power-Bailable offence-Accused released on bail by Magis- trate-Subsequent P1'•iudicial conduct of accused-High Court's power to cancel bail-code of Crimmal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss, 426, 496, 497, 498, 561A. The appellant was charged under s. 120B of the Indi'1n Pe- nal Code and s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, which were bllilable offences, and was released on bail by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under s. 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An application made subsequently by the com- plainant for cancellation of the bail was dismissed by the Ma- gistrate on the ground that under s. 496 he had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. The complainant invoked the inherent power of the High Court under s. 561A of the Code and the High Court took the view that under that section it had inherent power to cancel the bail. and findinl! that on the material pro- duced before the Court it would not be safe to penn\t the ap- pellant to be at large, it cancelled the bail. On appeal to the Supreme Court:- Held, that though under s. 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail pending his trial, if Iris conduct subsequent to his release is found to be prejudicial to a fair trial, he for- feits his right to be released on baH and such furfeiture can be made effective by invoking the inherent power of the High Court under s. 561A of the Code. But the inherent power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is )\!stifled by the tests specifically laid down in the section itsel:t'. Lala Jui.ram Das & Others v. King Emperor, (1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 120, distinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 14, 1958, of the Bombay High Court in Cri- minal Application No. 60 of 1958 arising out of the judg- ment and order dated January 9, 1958, of the Court of Chief Presidency Magistrate at Bombay in an application for can- cellation of bail in Case No. roB/W of 1957. S.C.It. SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS i227 Purshottam Tricumdas, Rajni Patel and l.N. Shroff, for the 1968 appellant. 'l'IJlab Haji Huaaaii\ K. J. Khandalwala and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent v. M adllukar Ptm1wt• No. l. lam Mondkar 1958. February 7. The Judgment of the Court was de· livered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J .-The appellant, ·along with others, has been charged under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code (lajendragadkar J, and s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act (8 of 1878). There is no doubt that the offences charged against the appellant are bailable offences. Under s. 496 of the Code of Criminal Pro· cedure the appellant was released on bail of Rs. 75,000 with one surety for like amount on December 9, 1957, by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate at Bombay. On January 4, 1958, an a.pplication was made by the complainant before the learned Magistrate for cancellation of the bail; the learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the application on the ground that under s. 496 he had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Against this order, the complainant preferred a revisional ap- plication before the High Court of Bombay. Another applica· tion was preferred by the complainant before the same Court invoking its inherent power under s. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chagla C. J. and Datar J. who heard these applications took the view that, under s. S61A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court had inherent power to cancel the bail granted to a person accused of a bail· able offence and that, in a proper case, such power can and must be exercised in the interests of justice. The learned Jud· ges then considered the ma.terial produced before · the Court and came to the conclusion that, in the present case, it would not be safe to permit the appellant to be at large. That is why the application made by the complainant invoking the High Court's inherent power under s. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed, the bail-bond executed by the appel· !ant was caneelled and an order was passed directing that the appellant be arrested forthwith and committed to cu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.