Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
Dolat Ram & Ors.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
The State of Haryana
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/11/1994
BENCH:
A.S. ANAND & M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
1. Leave granted.
2. In a case arising out of FIR No. 735 dated 8.11,1993,
relating to the alleged dowry death of Smt. Sunita - wife of
Anil Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak
granted anticipatory bail to the parents and the brother of
’the husband of the deceased Smt. Sunira and directed that
they be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in
the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each of the
like amount in the event of their arrest to the satisfaction
of the Arresting Officer. No bail has however been granted
to the husband - Anil Kumar. The State of Haryana filed a
petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking
cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted to the
appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on
November 12, 1993. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court by its order dated 8.9.1994, cancelled the bail
observing:
"Dowry death is a serious matter and cannot be
taken so lightly. No positive finding has been
recorded by the Addl. Session Judge in his
order to the effect that the respondents and
the deceased were living separately. No prima-
facie case is made out which could justify the
grant of anticipatory bail. To my view of
thinking, concession of anticipatory bail
granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, was
totally uncalled for. The order dated November
12, 1993 is, therefor, set aside and the
respondents are directed to be taken into
custody."
The appellants are aggrieved of the cancellation of the
anticipatory bail, granted to them. Hence this appeal.
3. It appears to us that whereas the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was not justified in observing in the last
paragraph of his order while granting anticipatory bail "it
appears that possibly these accused applicants have been
roped in falsely", at that initial stage, when possibly the
investigation was not even completed let alone, any evidence
had been led at the trial, the High Court also fell in error
in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
appellants for the reasons, which have been extracted by us
above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had noticed
that even according to the statement in the FIR, the
appellants were living separately from the deceased and her
husband and that the factum of separate residence was also
supported by the ration card. These considerations were
relevant considerations for dealing with an application for
grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have
to be considered and dealt with on different basis, Very
129
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an
order directing the cancellation of the bail, already
granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of
bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are:
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the
due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to
the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court,
on the basis of material placed on the record of the
possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail. Flowever, bail once
granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without considering whether any supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to
allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it
appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it
decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court
it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors.
relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable ease in the
first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.
5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the appellants, for the reasons
given by the High Court, was not justified. Nothing has
been brought to our notice either from which any inference
may possibly be drawn that the appellants have in any
manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during the
intervening period.
6. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the
impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 12the
November, 1993.
130