Supreme Court of India
HAZARI LAL DASversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1114
- Decided
- 8 September 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
Holding
Cancellation of the anticipatory bail was not justified as the record did not demonstrate any grounds for such cancellation.
Summary
The appellant, headmaster of Sambhunagar High School, was accused of opening a bank account with his servant and misappropriating Rs.6 lakh, leading to a complaint and FIR under several IPC sections. He applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which the Sessions Judge granted with conditions. The complainant approached the High Court, which cancelled the anticipatory bail. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the proper grounds for cancelling bail, noting that cancellation requires clear evidence of interference with justice, abuse of the bail concession, or risk of absconding, none of which were shown. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court’s cancellation was unjustified, set aside its order, and restored the anticipatory bail with the original conditions.
Issues considered
- What are the proper grounds for cancelling anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 of the CrPC?
- Did the record show any interference with the administration of justice, abuse of bail, or other supervening circumstances justifying cancellation?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 403, s. 409, s. 420, s. 467
Subjects
anticipatory bailcancellation of bailSection 438Criminal Procedurebail jurisprudencehigh court interferencedue course of justice
Judgment
-(
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 195
~
...
\
J.. HAZARI LAL DAS A
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1_732 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 8, 2009
8
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
.l..
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.438 - Complaint
u/ss. 403, 409, 420, 467134 /PC- Grant of anticipatory bail-
Cancelled by High Court - On appeal, held: Cancellation of c
- bail not justified - Record does not show interference or
attempt of interference with the due course of administration
of justice, or abuse of the concession, on the part of the
accused.
)-
D
Dau/at Ram and Ors. vs. State of Haryana (1995)1 SCC
349, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
(1995) 1 sec 349 Referred to Para 9 E
.,_ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1732 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.9.2008 of the High
Court of Calcutta in CRM. No. 7046 of 2008. F
Ambika Ray, Zaki Ahmad Khan, M. Khairati, lrshad Ahmad
for the Appellant.
Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Pankhuri
Shrivastava, Jitendra Mahapatra, Shibashish Pattanaik, G
~
Merusagar Samantaray for the Respondents.
The Order of the was Court delivered by
'
.
195 H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
,
'
I
"
~-
A ORDER
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. On the basis of the complaint made by Jayanta Naskar,
Secretary, Sambhunagar High School, P.O. Sambhunagar, a
B First Information Report being FIR No.15/2008 was lodged on
May 30, 2008 under Sections 403, 409, 420, 467/34 IPC, at
..4_
Police Station Gosaba, District 24 Parganas (South). It is
alleged that appellant who is Headmaster of Sambhunagar
High School opened a bank account No. 0855010083094 with
c the U.B.I., Lalbazar Branch, Kolkata on April 30, 2008; that the
appellant introduced his servant Gour Ohara as a secretary of -..
the school; that the said account was opened jointly with his
servant and that he deposited a cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- which
had come to the school from Sports and Youth Services (Sports '"(
D Wing), Government of West Bengal, with an intention to
misappropriate the said amount. It is also alleged that the said
account was opened by the appellant without any resolution of
the Managing Committee of ttie school and that he submitted
false and forged copy of the minutes of the meeting No.15
E dated April 26, 2008 with the seal of the Headmaster,
Sambhunagar High School.
-<_
3. The appellant made an application for anticipatory bail "
under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before
the Sessions Judge, Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South).
F
~
4. Learned, Sessions Judge (l/C) after hearing the counsel
for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor enlarged the
appellant on anticipatory bail vide Order dated July 3, 2008. It
was ordered that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be
G released on anticipatory bail of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of __,
Rs.2,500/- each; one of such surety shall be local. The Sessions
Judge (l/C) also put a condition that the appellant shall attend
the police station once in a week for eight weeks. He also
imposed usual conditions as laid down in Section 438 (2)
H Cr.P.C.
HAZARI LAL DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & 197
ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
' 5. The complainant - Jayant Naskar approached the High A
J.
Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the·
, Sessions Judge (l/C) to the appellant. By the impugned order
dated September 18, 2008, the High Court cancelled the
anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge (l/C).
B
6. On December 12, 2008 this Court while issuing notice
stayed the operation of the impugned order. The order of
J._
Sessions Judge (l/C) granting anticipatory bail, thus, has
remained operative.
7. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and c
-
'
perused the order of the High Court.
8. Although the High Court did notice in the impugned
order that the considerations which should be in the mind of
y the court while considering the prayer for grant of bail are not D
the same for the purpose of cancellation of bail, yet we find that
these considerations were not kept in mind and the order of
the Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail was set aside.
9. In Do/at Ram And Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1
SCC 349, this Court held: E
~
"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 cogent
and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an F
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 G
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. However, bail once granted should H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
./
A not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without _.L
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
B 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 case in the first instance
and the cancellation of bail already granted."
c 10. There is nothing on record that there has been
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not
-
appear from the record that concession granted to him has
been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances .
D have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory
bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge
in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the
High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing
circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order
E cannot be sustained.
11. Accordingly, appeal must succeed and is allowed. The ~
impugned order dated September 18, 2008 is set aside. The )
appellant shall attend Gosaba Police Station once in a week
F as directed by Sessions Judge until completion of investigation.
He is also directed to fully cooperate with the Investigating
Officer and produce the entire record available with him.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "anticipatory bail"Sign in to search