Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MOHAN SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1978
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SINGH, JASWANT
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION:
1978 AIR 1095 1978 SCR (3) 127
1978 SCC (2) 366
ACT:
Criminal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974), 1973 Sections
437, 439--Special powers of High Court under S. 439(2) in
cancelling bail.
HEADNOTE:
The bail granted by the Sessions to the appellant, who was
charged for an offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, was cancelled by the High Court on the
ground that he moved both the Sessions and the High Court
simultaneously, without disclosing it to the Sessions Court.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court
HELD : Refusal of bail is not an indirect process of
punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is
a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. The real basis
of bail law is as laid down by the Supreme Court in [1978] 2
SCR 358 [127 G-H, 128A]
Gurcharan Singh & Ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration),
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 358 reiterated.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 118 of
1978.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
11th January, 1978 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Criminal Misc. No. 129-M of 1978).
S. K. Alehta for the Appellant.
M. M. Punchhi and P. C. Bhartari for the Respondent.
ORDER
The offence alleged in this case against the appellant is
one under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Bail was granted by the Sessions Judge after hearing counsel
on both sides but it was cancelled by the High Court mainly
for the reason that the appellant had simultaneously moved
for bail in the Sessions as well as in the High Court
without disclosing to the Sessions Court that he had moved
for bail in the High Court. This naturally made the High
Court feel that the party was not straight-forward in his
dealings, with the Court. The consequence was that the bail
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
already granted was reversed.
Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption
of which the appellant was guilty prima-facie (according to
the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us
assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect
process of punishing an accused person before he is
convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale, of
bail. This
128
Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan
Singh & ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1). We
do not think there is as yet any allegation against the
appellant of interference with the course of justice or
other well-established grounds for refusal of bail. In this
view, we direct that the appellant be allowed to continue on
bail until further orders to the contrary passed by the
Sessions Court if good grounds are made out to its
satisfaction.
S.R.
Appeal allowed.
(1) (1978) 2 S.C R. 358.
129