Holding

The High Court correctly cancelled the bail because the Sessions Judge’s order was perverse and unsupported by reasons, and under Section 439(2) and Section 482 the High Court may cancel bail suo motu or on a petition by any aggrieved party.

Summary

The appellants were charged under Sections 498‑A and 304‑B of the IPC for a dowry‑death. The Additional Sessions Judge granted them bail on 13 November 2000 without recording any reasons, prompting the father of the deceased to move the High Court, which cancelled the bail on the ground that the order was perverse and unsupported by reasons. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Sessions Judge was not required to give reasons, that the High Court itself had not given reasons, and that only the prosecution could move for cancellation of bail. The Court held that while reasons must be given for granting bail, they need not amount to a full merits analysis, and that the High Court was correctly empowered under Section 439(2) of the CrPC to cancel bail suo motu or on a petition by any aggrieved party. It further affirmed that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 allows interference with interlocutory orders when they are perverse, illegal or cause miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s cancellation of bail upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a Sessions Judge must give reasons while granting bail.
Whether the High Court must give reasons while cancelling bail.
Whether the High Court can cancel bail suo motu or on a petition by any aggrieved party, not only the prosecution.
Whether Section 439(2) of the CrPC empowers the High Court to cancel bail granted by a Sessions Court.
Whether Section 482 inherent jurisdiction permits the High Court to interfere with interlocutory bail orders.
Whether bail can be cancelled only on breach of bail conditions.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397(3), s. 439, s. 439(2), s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304-B, s. 498-A

Subjects

bailcancellation of bailSection 439Section 482dowry deathperverse orderinherent jurisdictionHigh Court powerinterlocutory order

Judgment

A PURAN ETC. ETC.
...
v.
_.L_
RAMBILAS AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

MAY 3, 2001

B [M.B. SHAH AND S.N. V ARIAVA, JJ.)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Section 439-Bail-Necessity of giving reasons while granting-
c Distinction between reasons for bail and merits of the case.

Section 439(2)
....
Cancellation of bail-Grounds for-Held, can be cancelled where the
order granting bail is perverse-Case of dowry death-Evidence to show
D complicity of the accused-Sessions Judge granted bail without giving
reasons-High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge-Held, High
Courts order was correct-Indian Penal Code-Sections 498-A and 304-B.

Power of Court to cancel bail--Exercise of-Held, can be exercised on
a petition by the prosecution, any aggrievgd party, or suo motu.
E
Sections 482 and 439(2)-lnterlocutory orders-Interference with-
Power under-Bail granted by the Sessions Judge-Held, can be cancelled ;,.
if it causes miscarriage of justice or is palpably illegal or is unjustified.
The Appellants and the lady members of their family were charged .L.
F under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IP.C. It was alleged by the prosecution
that P got married to the deceased on 24.11.1999. Dowry was demanded from
the family of the deceased at the time of marriage and one month prior to
the death of the deceased. The deceased died on 2.9.2000, within a year of
the marriage. From the scene of offence, two handkerchiefs, two small cotton
balls and one bigger cotton ball were recovered. Pieces of broken bangles
G were also found. The wire of telephone was found broken and the telephone
was lying on the bed. There were electric injuries on the body of the deceased.
Blisters and abrasions were also found on the body of the deceased.
>-....
<=
The ladies of the Appellants' family were released on bail by the
Sessions Judge by a detailed order dated 11.9.2000. The Appellants too were
H 432
•
+
PURAN v. RAMBILAS 433

- .J..
granted bail by the Sessions Judge on 13.11.2000. No reasons were given
by the Sessions Judge while granting bail to the Appellants•
A

An appeal was filed by the father of the deceased before the High Court.
The High Court set aside the bail granted by Sessions Judge. The Appellants,
therefore, filed this appeal before this Court.
B
On behalf of the Appellants it was argued that:-

1. The Sessions J.wtge had not given any reasons while granting bail
to the Appellants because the earlier bail order of the Sessions Judge whereby
he had granted bail to the female members of the family of the Appellants
giving cogent reasons, drew adverse remarks from the High Court on the c
ground that the Sessions Judge had discussed the merits of the evidence
~ collected against the accused persons in his bail order.

2. The High Court itself has not given any reasons while setting aside
the order of the Sessions Judge.
D
3. Once bail is granted it should not be cancelled until there is evidence
·-.(
that the conditions of th.., bail are being infringed.

4. The prosecution has not filed any application for cancellation of bail
and a third party could not have moved a petition for cancellation of bail.
E
5. High Court could not exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.
P.C. to interfere in an interlocutory order.

_. Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. Bail has been cancelled by the High Court for very valid and F
cogent reasons. Giving reasons is different from discussing merits or
demerits. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken.
That does not mean that whilst granting bail some reasons for prima facie
•I
concluding why bail was being granted should not be indicated.
[437-H; 438-A]
G

2. The High Court has correctly not gone into merits or demerits of
----""' the matter. The High Court has noted that evidence prima facie indicated
demand of dowry. The High Court has briefly indicated the evidence on record
and what was found at the scene of the offence. The High Court has given H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A very cogent reasons why bail should not have been granted and why the
unjustified erroneous order granting bail should be cancelled. (438-C-D]

3. Generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail 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
B the concession granted to the accused in any manner. It is, however, to be
noted that these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. Another
ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence
on record a perverse order granting bail is passeft'in a heinous crime and
that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles
C of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be
set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences
are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an
arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial court has to be
corrected. Further, the concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or
perverse order is totally different from the concept of caD.celling the bail on
D the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new
facts requiring such cancellation. (438-G-H; 439-A-B]

Gurcharan Singh & Ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration}, [1978]
1 sec 118, relied on.
E
Do/at Ram v. State of Haryana, [1995] 1 SCC 349, explained.

Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra & Am: (1999) Cri.L.J. 4063;
State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi, [1978] 2 SCC 411 and
Bhagirathsingh s/o Mahipal Singh Judeja y. State of Gujarat, (1984] 1 SCC .L
F 284, referred to.

4.1. There is nothing to indicate that the power under Section 439 (2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if the State or
investigating agency or a Public ~rosecutor moves by a petition. The power
G so vested in the High Court can be invoked either by the State or by any
aggrieved party. The said power could also be exercised suo motu by the High
Court. There is n~ barrier either in Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure or in any other law which inhibits a person from moving the High
Court to have such powers exercised suo motu. [440-F-G]

H R. Rathinam v. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District,
+
PURAN v. RAMBILAS 435

Madurai & Am:, [2000) 2 SCC 391, relied on. A
_L Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union ofIndia & Am: AIR (1993) SC 280 and
Janata Dal, etc. etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors., etc. etc. [1991) 3 SCC 356,
referred to.

4.2. In this case the application for cancellation of bail is not by a total B
stranger but it is by the father of the deceased. [440-C]

5.1. A restrictive interpretation which would have the effect of nullifying
Section 439 (2) of the Code of criminal Procedure cannot be given. When
Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants to the High Court
the power to cancel bail, it necessarily follows that such powers can be C
exercised also in respect of orders passed by the Court of Sessions. In the
hierarchy of Courts, the High Court is the Superior Court. [441-D]

5.2. It cannot be denied that for securing the ends of justice, the High
Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code D
of Criminal Procedure, can interfere with the order which causes miscarriage
of justice or is palpably illegal or is unjustified. Even if it is an interlocutory
order, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure is not affected by the provisions of Section 397 (3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That the High Court may refuse to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure E
on the basis of self imposed restriction is a different aspect. [441-F]

Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, [1988) 2
SCC 271; Amar Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR (1977) SC
2185; Mis India Pipe Fitting Co. v. Fakruddin MA. Baker & Am:, AIR F
(1978) SC 45; Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] 4 SCC 551
and Krishnan & Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Anr., [1997] 4 SCC 241, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
599 of 2001.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.2001 of the Bombay High
Court in Crl. A. No. 1740 of 2000.

WI1H

Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2001. H
+
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A U.R. Lalit and Uday Umesh Lalit for the Appellant.

Gopal Subramanium and VA Mohta, S. Muralidhar, Arnn S. Agrawal, -1_
Nikhil Nayyar and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
S. N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.

Heard parties.

These two Appeals are against an Order dated 24th January 2001, by
C which the High Court has cancelled bail, which had been granted to the
appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by his Order dated 13th
November, 2000.

Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

D The Petitioner got married to one Puja Agrawal on 24th November, 1999.
On 2nd of September, 2000 i.e.· within a year of the marriage the said Puja
Agrawal met with her death. The appellanat has been charged with offences
under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Along with the
appellant three other ladies had also been charged. Those ladies were granted
E bail by an Order dated 11th September, 2000. A Petition challenging that Order
has been rejected on 20th October, 2000.

The evidence prima facie suggests the following:- at the time of the
marriage there was a demand of dowry for Rs. 5 lacs including Rs. 2 lacs in
cash; that the father of the deceased has spent Rs. 7 lacs on marriage; that
F about a month prior to the death of the said Puja a demand of Rs. 1 lac was
made; that the father of the said Puja had offered Kisan Vikas Patra worth
Rs.30,000 to the appellant, which had been refused; that whenever the
deceased came to the parents home she was not wearing any ornaments; that
even at the time of her death she was not wearing any ornaments not even
G her "Mangalsutra". The deceased was eight months pregnant at the time of
her death. From the scene of offence, two handkerchiefs, two small cotton
balls and one bigger cotton ball were found. Pieces of broken bangles were
found. The wire of telephone was found broken. The telephone was found
on the bed. There were electric burn injuries over the left index finger, middle
finger, thumb, palms and back of palms upto base. Bone of left index finger
H was exposed and charred. Base of left index finger was swollen, distal part
PURAN v. RAMBILAS [VARIAVA, J.] 437

of left index finger was bluish in colour, surrounded by reddish area. There A
were electric burn injuries over right supramammary region oval shaped 7 cm
x 4 1/2 cm. Centre of the burnt area was blackened and hard measuring 5 cm.
x 3 1/2 cm. Blisters were found present over lateral aspect of left thigh, upper
l/3rd, 5 cm. x 1 1/2 cm. and 2 cm. Anterior to this injury, as also over lateral
aspect of right thigh, upper l/3rd. Besides this, abrasions were found on the B
right side of back, over infra scapulas region.

We have heard the parties. Mr. Lalit has argued this Appeal at great
length. We have given anxious consideration to his submissions but for
reasons set out hereafter are unable to accept them.

Mr. Lalit submitted that one of the reasons why the High Court set C

... aside bail was that the Additional Sessions Judge had not referred to any
material circumstance on record and had not given any reasons. He submitted
that the High Court was wrong in so observing. He submitted that the same
Additional Sessions Judge had earlier granted bail to the ladies by his Order
dated 11th September, 2000. He pointed out that, whilst so granting bail, the. D
Additional Sessions Judge had given very cogent reasons. He submitted that
against that Order a Petition had been filed in the High Court. He submitted
that even though the High Court rejected the Petition, the High Court observed

-- as follows :

"I agree with the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the E
complainant that while granting bail the learned Judge ought not to
have ventured to discuss the merits or demerits of the evidence
collected against the accused persons. Probably he was not aware or
he was not reminded of the advice given by the Apex Court in the
case of Niranjan Singh & another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote
and Others, reported in AIR (1980) S.C. 785 wherein detailed F
examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits
of the case while passing orders on bail application was deprecated."

He submitted that in view of these observations the learned Additional
Sessions Judge did not given reasons whilst granting bail. He submitted that G
in these circumstances the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be faulted. He
submitted that the High Court could not cancel bail on this ground. We see
no substance in this contention. Giving reasons is different from discussing
---··( merits or demerits. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to
be undertaken. What the Additional Sessions Judge had done, in the Order H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A dated 11th September, 2000 was to discuss the merits and de-merits of the
evidence. That was what was deprecated. That did not mean that whilst
granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being
granted did not have to be indicated.
Mr. Lalit next submitted that the High Court has itself not given reasons
B but has mechanically set aside the order of the bail. We see no substance in
this submission. The High Court has correctly not gone into merits or demerits
of the matter. The High Cour.t has noted that evidence prima-facie indicated
demand of dowry. The High Court has briefly indicated the evidence on
record and what was found at the scene of the offence. The High Court has
C indicated that evidence prima facie indicated that a dem':lnd for Rs. I lac was
made just a month prior to the incident in question. The High Court has stated
that the material on record suggested that the offences under Sections 498-
A and 304-A were prima facie disclosed. The High Court has concluded that
the material on record, the nature of injuries, demand for Rs. I lac and the
other circumstances were such that this was not a fit case for granting bail.
n .. Thus the High Court has given very cogent reasons why bail should not have
been granted and why this unjustified erroneous Order granting bail should
be cancelled.
Mr. Lalit next submitted that once bail has been granted it should not
be cancelled unless there is evidence that the conditions of bail are being
E infringed. In support of this submission he relies upon the authority in the
case of Do/at Ram & Ors. v. State ofHaryana reported in [1995] I S.C.C. 349.
In this case it has been held that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at
the initial stage and the cancellation of .bail already granted have to be
considered and dealt with on different basis. It has been held that very cogent
and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the
F cancellation of the bail already granted. It has been held that generally
speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly 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. It is, however, to be noted that this
G Court has clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive.
One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material
and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous
crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order
would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that
such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered
H that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the
PURAN v. RAMBILAS [VARIAVA, J.] . 439
/ Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial A
_J.._ court has to be corrected.
Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the
~

unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of
cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or
because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. This position is made B
clear by this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in AIR
(1978) SC 179. In that case the Court observed as under:-
-1..
"If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to

..
bail, the State has two options. It may move the Se11sions Judge if
certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known c
to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may
as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under S. 439
(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is
aggrieved by the order of the S-essions Judge granting bail and there
are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already
existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and D
it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the
"(
bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court
of Session vis-a-vis the High Court."

It must be mentioned that in support of the above submission Mr. Lalit
had also relied upon the authorities in the cases of Subhendu Mishra v. E
Subrat Kumar Mishra and another reported in (1999) Crl. L.J. 4063, State
(Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi reported in [1978] 2 S.C.C. 411 and
Bhagirath Singh slo Mahipal Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat reported in
[1984] 1 S.C.C. 284. These need not be dealt with separately as they are of
no assistance in a case of this nature where bail has been cancelled for very F
cogent and correct reasons.

Our view is supported by the principles laid down in the case of
,,..._
Gurcharan Singh & Others, etc. v. State, (Delhi Administration) reported in
[1978] 1 S.C.C. 118. In this case it has been held, by this Court, that under
Section 439(2), the approach should be whether the order granting bail was G
... vitiated by any serious infirmity for which it was right and proper for the High
Court, in the interest of justice, to interfere.

Mr. Lalit next submitted that a third party cannot move a Petition for
cancellation of the bail. He submitted that in this case the Prosecution has
not moved for cancellation of the bail. He pointed out that the father of the H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A deceased had moved for cancellation of the bail. He relied upon the cases of
Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India and another reported in AIR (1993)
S.C. 280 and Jana/a Dal, etc. etc. v. HS. Chowdhary and others, etc. etc.
reported in [1991] 3 S.C.C. 356. Both these cases dealt with Petitions under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India whereunder a total stranger challenged
the conviction and sentence of the accused. This Court held that neither
B under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code nor under any other
statute is a third party stranger permitted to question the correctness of the
conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after a regular trial. It was held
that the Petitioner, who was a total stranger, had no 'locus standi' to challenge
the conviction and the sentence awarded to the convicts in a Petition under
C Article 32. The principle laid down in these cases have no application to the
facts of the present case. In this case the application for cancellation of bail
is not by a total stranger but it is by the father of the deceased. In this behalf
the ratio laid down in the case of R. Rathinam v. State by DSP, District Crime
Branch, Madurai District, Madurai and anr. reported in [2000] 2 S.C.C. 391,
needs to be seen. In this case Bail had been granted to certain persons. A
D group of practising advocates presented petitions before Chief Justice of the
High Court seeking initiation of suo motu proceedings for cancellation of bail.
The Chief Justice placed the petitions before a Division Bench. The Division
Bench refused to exercise the suo motu powers on the ground that the
petition submitted by the advocates was not maintainable. This Court held
E that the frame of sub-section (2) of Section 439 indicates that it is a power
conferred on the Courts mentioned therein. It was held that there was nothing
to indicate that the said power can be exercised only if the State or
investigating agency or a Public Prosecutor moves by a petition. It was held
that the power so vested in the High Court can be invoked either by the State
or by any aggrieved party. It was held that the said power could also be
F exercised suo motu by the High Court. It was held that, therefore, any member
of the public, whether he belongs to any particular profession or otherwise
could move the High Court to remind it of the need to <?xercise its power suo
motu. It was held that there was no barrier either in Section 439 of the Criminal
Procedure Code or in any other law which inhibits a person from moving the
G High Court to have such powers exercised suo motu. It was held that if the
High Court considered that there was no need to cancel the bail then it could
dismiss the Petition. It was held that it was always open to the High Court
to cancel the bail if it felt that there were sufficient enough reasons for doing
so.

H Mr. Lalit next relied upon the authorities in the cases of Usmanbhai
+
PURAN v. RAMBILAS [VARIAV:A, J.] 441

Dawoodbhai Memon and Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in [1988] 2 S.C.C. A
271, Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR
--. .....L (1977)· S.C. 2185 and Mis. India Pipe Fitting Co. v. Fakruddin MA. Baker
... and another reported in AIR (1978) S.C. 45. Relying on these he submitted
that an order granting bail was an interlocutory order, and the High Court
could not exercise powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Cede
and thus could not cancel Bail. Mr. Lalit submitted that Section 439 of the B
Criminal Procedure Code gives the power of cancellation of bail both to the
Sessions Court and the High Court. He submitted that thus the High Court
-~
and Sessions Court were co-ordinate Courts under this Section. He submitted
that the High Court could not thus sit in Appeal or Revision over an Order
of the Court of Sessions. He submitted that under Section 439(2), it is only c
the orders of the Magistrate, which could be set aside by the High Court or
the Court of Sessions.

We see no substance in this submission. In the hierarchy of Courts, the
High Court is the Superior Court. A restrictive interpretation which would
have effect of nullifying Section 439(2) cannot be given. When Section 439(2) D
grants to the High Court the power to cancel bail, it necessarily follows that
such powers can be exercised also in respect of Orders passed by the Court
"'--(
of Sessions. Of course cancellation of bail has to be on principles set out
hereinabove and only in appropriate cases.

Further, even if it is an interlocutory order, the High Court's inherent E
..' jurisdiction under Section 482 is not affected by the provisions of Section 397
(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That the High Court may refuse to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 on the basis of self-imposed
_..(_ restriction is a different aspect. It cannot be denied that for securing the ends
of justice, the High Court can interfere with the order which causes miscarriage F
of justice or is palpably illegal or is unjustified. [Re. Madhu Limaye v. State
ofMaharashtra, [1977] 4 SCC 551 and Krishnan and Another v. Krishnaveni

... and Another, [1997] 4 SCC 241.

In this case, as indicated above, bail has been cancelled for very valid
and cogent reasons G
Accordingly we see no substance in these Appeals. The same stand
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-~
B.KM. Appeals dismissed.