Holding

Cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, and the High Court erred in interfering with the Sessions Judge's discretionary bail order without considering the proper criteria.

Summary

The appellant was charged under Section 307 IPC for stabbing a victim and was granted bail by the Sessions Judge. The State appealed, and the Gujarat High Court cancelled the bail, citing the victim's status as a social and political worker and the seriousness of the offence. The Supreme Court held that cancellation of bail requires "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances" and that the only material considerations are the accused's likelihood of appearing for trial and the risk of tampering with evidence. It found that the High Court had misdirected itself by focusing on irrelevant factors and by interfering with the Sessions Judge's discretionary order without addressing the proper criteria. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the bail with modified conditions, and emphasized the limited scope of judicial power to cancel bail.

Issues considered

What constitutes "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances" justifying cancellation of bail?
Whether the High Court can set aside a bail order of the Sessions Judge on grounds other than the accused's availability for trial and risk of evidence tampering?
Whether the victim's status as a social/political worker is a relevant factor for cancelling bail?

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Acts. 135
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307

Subjects

bailcancellation of baildiscretionary powerprima facie casesocial and political workerCriminal ProcedureIPC 307high court interference

Judgment

. .
BfiAGIRATH SINH S/O MAH!PAT SINGH JUJ;>EJA.
. . 839

A
V.

STATE OF GUJARAT •
November 2l, 1983 B
(D.A. DESAI AND R.B. MIS!lA, JJ.]

Criminal. Procedure-Batl~For canrellatio'! of hail very cogent and
overWhelming circ1u11stances are neressar~'·
c
. PraCtice-Bailgranted by Ses$1ons Judge by ·a Well reasoned order-Set
., aside by High Court~Supreme Cnw·t 'ro in"terfere .if approach "adopted by Higl}
Court is not commencjing..

The appellant, against whom an offence under sec. 307 I.P.C. had been
registered for giving knife blows·to »'l person Was gra_nted bail by the Sessions D
Judge. On applicat_icin by the State, a Sirigle Judge _of the High Court cancelled
the. bail. Hence this appeal by spe~ial leave.
•
Allowing ttie a·ppeal,

lJELD : Very ~ogent and -over~helming circumstances are n·ecessary for E
an.order seeking cancellation.Ofthe bail and the trend today is towards granting
bail because it. is now well·settled that the power to grant bail is ·not to' be
exercised as if the punishment before ~aril is being imposed. The only n1:iterial
consjdeiations in such asituation are whether the. accused would be readily
available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion'granted in
his·favour by ta111pering with evidence. {842 D-E]

In the instant case the _order made by ,the High Court is conspicuous by
its silence on these. two relevant consideratioii,S. The learned Judge was impres-
sed bY some of the most irreievant considerations and misdirected h_imself. The
circumstances found by him that the victim attacked was a social and political-
worker could not be considered so overridiilg· as to permit interference. by the"'
High Court with the discretionary Order of _the Sessioris Judge grU:nting _bail. G
The High Court coffipletely.overlooked the fact that it. was not for it ·to decide
whether the bail shoU:Id- be gra"nted bllt the application before it was for
cancellation On the bail. L842 B.q "' •

CRIMINAL APPELLATE . JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal 'No. 658 of.
1983. "
840 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS. [1984) i s.c.R. · · ·
<II
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and· Order dated
A the 21st Octobef, _1983 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Misc .

.
. App!ication NC?. 1724 of 1983 .

• Vima/ Dave for the Appellant. ·
. I .. .
B .·M. N. Phadke, R. iv, Poddar, Girish ·Chandra and C. V. Subba
Rao for the Respondent.

.The Judgment ofthe·court was delivered by

l:>Es.<1, J. Special Leave granted.
c
Onlinad.IY this Court is not inclined to interfere with the or,ders
either granting or refusing to grant bail to an accused peqon ~ither
··facing a criminal 'tiial or whose ·case after conviction is pending in
· appeal.· However, thi1 is not a case where bail is granted or refused
D but the order granting the bail by the.learned Sessions Judge was set

'
commend .
aside by .the High Court adopting an. approach which does 11ot
. to 'us.

It is alleged that the appellant gave biows. with a knife to one·
Popatlal Sornthia; who had come to visit an indoor paiient Navalsinh
E Bhatti on August 11; 1983 around 9.45 A.M. Appellani was accosted
. by· the policemen on duty.. An offence ·under Sec. 307 'i.P.C. was.·
registered against him \ind the appellant was taken into custody and
was subsequently remanded to judicial ·custody. An application for
releasing him on bail was made on August 22, 1983 to ·the Chief
F Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,. Rajkot
was pleased to dismiss .the sa'ine by his order dated August·29, 1983.

On the same day, an application for releasing the appellant .on
bail was moved before the learned Sessions· Judge: A notke was .
issued to.the learned Public Prosecuier. After hearing both the sides,·
G the le~rned Sessions judge by a well-reasoned order directed that:
the · appellant be released on bail on his furnishing security in the
amount of Rs.SOOD and persona_! bond of tpe like amount.
. .
It Appears that the State of Gujarat filed Misceliancens Criminal
H
Application No. 1724 of 1983 in the High Court of Gujarat seeking
cancellation of the order granting bail to the appellant. A learned·
.. Single Judge Mthe High C,ourt held that once ~ prima facia case is
.
, iiaAGIRATHSINH v. ouJARAT (Desai,
. '
J.\ . . S4i
established, the learned Sessiqns Judge ought to have taken into con·
sideration the nature and , gravity of the ,circulI)stances in which the A
offence is committed·. The charge against the appellant is that he
has.committed an offence punishable under Sec. 307. I.P.O. and Sec.
135 of the Bombay Poiice Act and even on the date of hearing of ..
this appeal before us on November .18, 1983,'the Court was informed
·that ,the victim is alive and at present there is no danger to his life.
B
Nearly 3 mpnths have rolled by from the date of the offence. We
fail to understand what the learned Judge of the High Court desires
. to convey when· he says that once a primafacia case is established,, it.
is Oecessary for the court to examine the nature and gravity ofthe
circumstances in which t!le offence was 'committed. If there is no
· :prima facie case there is no question of considering other circnm·
stances, But even where a prima facie case is established, the •
.. . approach of ihe c6u~t in the matter of bail is not that the accused
should be detained 1,y way of punishment but whether th,e presence ·.
of the .accused would be readily available for.trial or that he is likely • .
to abuse the discretion granied in his favour· by tampering with
D
evidence. We would have. certainly cverlooked 'this aspect of the
matter if the· approacb of the..Jearned fudge was oth~rwise one which
would commend to us: It however appears that. the learned judge
,was impressed by some of the most irrelevant considerations which
of
. prima fade. emerge froai the following observations the. learned
Judge
.
which .permeates his whole order running into about 13 pages.
~ . E
Says the learned )udge :

''The learned Judge ought to .have seen the fact that
the helpless victim had gone to , the hospital 'for pre·'
operation check~up. He was a leading social and political
worker. 'He was an ,act.ive worker and ·Secretary of
"Gundagiri Nivaran Samiti" which had. raised a cam- . ,;
paign against the atrocities allegedly having been commit-
ted, by the Rajputs of Girasiya community. Admittedly
. ihe re5ponderil is a·irasiya and the. comp}ainant who was
an active worker and · Secretary of Gun:dagiri .Nivaran
G
· Samiti had become a victim ai the hands of the. respon·
.- . dent. The learn<d Judge ought io have taken into con·
sideration the mateiial fact that the iitcident hail taken
place in the premises of the Hospitafwhich inay terrorize H
· , a number of sick persons who might be. getting treatment
in the hospital;"
SUPREME COURT REPORTS it984) 1 s.c.R.
At another place, the learned Judge has observed that the
A ·learned Sessions Judge has ignorged the fact that a social and· politi-
<:l\) worker was attacked in the hospital premises with a knife h~ving
·9" blade an_d as many as 11 injuries were caused to a helpless yictim .

• In our -~pinion, the learned Judge appears to have mi.sdirected
B )limself while examini,1g the question of directing cancellation of bail
;
·by. interfering . with ·a discreationary order made by the ·leatned
·Sessions Judge, One could have appreciated the qnxiety of the
learned Judge of the High Court that in the circumstances found by
··him that the victim attacked was a social and political worker and
"'therefore the accused should n.ot be granted bail but we fail to appre~
c >. piaie how that circumstance should be considered so overriding as to

• ·•permit interference with a discreationary order of the learned Sessions
Judge granting bail. The High Court completely overlooked the fact
that it was 'not for it to decide whether the bail should be granted but .
th<! applicatio11 before it was for· cancellation of the bail. Very cogant
and·oveiwhelming circumstances are necessary for an· order seeking
cancellation oft.he bail. ·And, the . trend today is tow~rds granting
bail because it is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if ·the .~
·)1tinishment before'tri~l is bei~g imposed. The only material consi-
-tlerations in stich a situati()n are whether the accused would be
readily ~vailable for .his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the
discretion granted in his favm1r by tampering with evidence. The
.order made by the High Court is con.sp,icuous by its silence on these
two relevant considerations. · It is for these reasons that we consider
in the interest of justice a compelling necessity to' intetfere w'ith the
F order m~de by ~he High Court,. "

We accordingly allow this appeal and· set aside the order i;nade
by the learned High Court Judge and ·restore the ·.one . made. by the
learned Sessions Judge .with following modifications:

,G. (i) · The appellant shall be release~ or ifhe is on !)ail
continue to be on bail on his furnishing two fresh
bail-bonds . each .in the amount of Rs.5000 supported
by a solvent security .
•
H (ii) · The appellant shall report on, first Monday every
· morith before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot
at 11.00 A.M. till liis trial commences.. Thereafter
BHAGIRATHSJN_H v. ouiARAT (Desai, J.) 843

he would be subject to the further orders that may
be made in this behalf by the court which would A
try him.

(iii) Other copditions imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge remain .un-altered .
•
B
Order accordingly.

H.S.K. Appeal al/ow.ed:.

"

•
.