Holding

Cancellation of bail should not be ordered routinely and cannot be based on alleged violation of conditions that were never stipulated; the High Court's order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Summary

Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed was arrested for offences under the IPC and was released on bail by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 10 February 2006 upon furnishing a Rs 10,000 surety, without any specific conditions. The complainant filed an application for cancellation of bail, and a notice was served; the hearing was scheduled for 24 April 2006. The appellant left the courtroom after being told his matter might be listed the following week and, on 25 April 2006, the Bombay High Court Single Judge cancelled his bail, alleging violation of conditions and threats to the complainant, despite no conditions having been imposed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had not recorded any breach of conditions and that cancellation of bail cannot be routine. The Supreme Court held that cancellation of bail must be based on concrete violations of expressly stipulated conditions or statutory bars, and that the High Court erred in observing a breach where none was stipulated. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the cancellation order and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, while keeping the interim order in force. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a bail order can be cancelled in the absence of expressly stipulated conditions.
Whether non‑appearance of the accused at the bail‑cancellation hearing justifies cancellation of bail.
Whether cancellation of bail may be ordered routinely without a detailed assessment of statutory and factual grounds.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 438, s. 439(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 324, s. 34

Subjects

bailcancellation of bailSection 438 CrPCSection 439 CrPCnon‑appearanceconditions of bailSupreme Courtremand

Judgment

A RIZWAN AKBAR HUSSAIN SYYED '
,,__
v.
MEHMOOD HUSSAIN AND ANR.

MAY 18, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Bail-Cancellation of bail-Held: Not to be done in routine manner- ~

On facts, no observation in impugned order cancelling bail that appellant
violated specific conditions imposed on him while granting bail-Matter "'
c remanded to High Court to consider afresh application for cancellation of
bail-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S.438.

Appellant was arrested for commission of certain offences. He filed bail
application. CMM directed his release on bail on furnishing surety for Rs.
D 10,000/-. Appellant was served through an official of the V.P. Road Police
Station a notice relating to an application for cancellation of bail which was
registered as Criminal Application before the High Court. According to the ;:
appellant, he was present on the date fixed for hearing, that is, 24th April,
2006. His case was listed as item No. 52 in Court Room No. 9 and by about
5.00 p.m. only 30 matters had been heard. On enquiry from an official of the
E court, he was told that his matter may be listed next week and, therefore, he
left the court premises at about 5.15 p.m. On 25th April, 2006, the impugned
order has been passed. In fact, believing the statement of the court official,
appellant, had engaged a counsel who made enquiries in the Registry on 28th
April, 2006 and was told that bail was cancelled by order dated 25th April,
2006.
F
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the High Court has not
indicated any reason for cancellation of bail. No condition was stipulated by
the trial court while granting bail. Single Judge has observed that the
appellant has violated the conditions imposed and has threatened the
G complainant after he was released on bail.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

H
HEW: The High Court seems to have taken exception for non-appearance
of the appellant at the time of hearing of the application for cancellation of
246
)--
-
RIZWANAKBARHUSSAINSYYEDv.MEHMOODHUSSAIN(PASAYAT,J.) 247
bail The reason for non-appearance has been explained by the appellant It is A
true that in the order granting bail. There was no specific stipulation of any
condition. In fact, in the petition for cancellation of bai~ the ·respondent No. 1
has stated that while granting bail, no conditions were imposed. In that sense,
the appellant is right that the High Court has erroneously observed that the
conditions for grant of bail were violated. There was no specific condition
.
imposed and, that was one of the grievances of the respondent No.I. But even
B
if no condition is specifically stipulated, the accused, while on bail, is not
supposed to tamper with evidence. There is no specific observation in this
regard in the impugned order. Cancellation of bail should not be done in a
routine manner. Where it appears to the superior Court that the Court
granting bail acted on irrelevant materials or there was non-application of C
mind or where Court does not take note of any statutory bar to grant of bail,
order for cancellatfon of bail can be made. These circumstances are
illustrative and not ex~austive. The Court considering the application for
cancellation of bail has to take note of all relevant aspects. In the
circumstances of the case, it is proper to remand the matter to the High Court
for fresh consideration of the application for the cancellation of baii. n'
[Para 8) [249-F-H; 250-A-C)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 768 of
2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2006 of the High Court E
of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. Application No. 780 of 2006.

Abhisth Kumar and Vibhakar Mishra for the Appellant.

Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Respondents.
F
R.K. Adsure for the State.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJITPASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
G
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Bombay High Court cancelling the bail granted to the appellant,
by exercising power under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
-- --( 1973 (for short the 'Code').

3. The facts as projected by the appellant in a nutshell are as follows: H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A 4: On 4th February, 2006 First Information Report was lodged by the ,.,._
respondent No.I alleging that he and his friend named Girish Shetty, were
attacked by the appellant and some other unidentified persons, resulting in
injuries. The appellant was arrested on 4th February, 2006. He filed an
application for grant of bail. By order dated 10th February; 2006 learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 4th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, directed
B release of the appellant on bail on his furnishing a surety for a sum of
Rs. I0,000/-. According to the appellant, respondent No. I was not happy with
the grant of bail and wanted to scare the appellant and, therefore, on various.
~
occasions threatened him. The appellant had lodged report with the police
and on 21st February, 2006, his complaint was registered as N:C. complaint.
c Again on 4th April, 2006, the appellant was threatened by respondent No. I.
Subsequently, on 19th April, 2006, appellant was served through an official
of the V.P. Road Police Station a notice relating to an application for cancellation
of bail which was registered as Criminal Application No.780/2006 before the
Bombay High Court. According to the appellant, he was present on the date
fixed for hearing, that is, 24th April, 2006. His case was listed as item No.52
D in Court Room No.9. and by about 5.00 p.m. only 30 matters had been heard.
On enquiry from an official of the court, he was told that his matter may be
listed next week and, therefore, he left the court premises at about 5.15 p.m. (
On 25th April, 2006, the impugned order has been passed. In fact, believing
the statement of the court official, appellant, had engaged a counsel who
E made enquiries in the Registry on 28th April, 2006 and was told that bail was
cancelled by order dated 25th April, 2006.

5. In support of the appeal. learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that this is a case involving alleged commission of offence punishable under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The case of
F respondent No. I appears to be that the case ought to have been registered
under Section 307 IPC. Even if conceding for sake of arguments that it is so,
considering the nature. of injuries allegedly suffered by respondent No. I and
r-
his friend, there was no reason to refuse· bail. Hence the court had rightly
granted bail. In any event, the learned Single Judge has not indicated any
reason for cancellation of bail. No condition was stipulated by the trial court
G while granting bail. Surprisingly, learned Single Judge has observed that the
appellant· has violated the conditions imposed and has threatened the
complainant after he was rele~ed on bail. The facts point to the contrary. In
fact, the appellant has lodged complaint before the police about the threats
given by respondent No. I.
)-- -
H
RIZWANAKBARHUSSAINSYYEDv.MEHMOODHUSSAIN(PASAYAT,J.) 249
..., 6. In response, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra and the A
complainant submitted that though it was not so specifically spelt out in the
order granting bail, it is inherent in every grant of bail that there shall not be
any misuse thereof. Since the appellant threatened respondent No. I, therefore,
the cancellation of bail is in order.

7. The order of learned Single Judge, so far as relevant, reads as follows: B
"3. It is submitted though an offence punishable under Section 307
- ..)
_
was clearly made out, the V.P. Road Police Station registered the
offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the 1.P.C. It is
alleged that after Respondent No. I was released on bail, thereafter he
was started threatening the Applicant and has informed him that if he c
does not withdraw the complaint, he will have to face dire
consequences. Two N.C. complaints have been filed by the present
Applicant after the Respondent No. I was released on bail.
4. Notice was issued and permission was given to serve the respondent
through V.P. Road Police Station. D
S. Learned A.P.P. on instructions from the office who is present in the
"" Court submitted that Respondent No. I was served on 19th April, 2006
and his signature was obtained on the_\vrit which was issued by this
Court. Yet, none appears on behalf of Respondent No. I. With the
result, there is no other option but to cancel the bail which .was E
granted by the trial Court since he has not complied with the conditions
which are imposed by the Court and has threatened the Complainant
after he was released on bail."

8. Learned Single Judge seems to have taken exception for non-
appearance of the appellant at the time of hearing of the application for
F
~
cancellation of bail. The reason for non-appearance has been explained by the
~
appellant. It is true that in the order granting bail, there was no specific
stipulation of any condition. In fact, in the petition for cancellation of bail,
the respondent No. I has stated that while granting bai~ no conditions were
imposed. In that sense, the appellant is right that the High Court has G
erroneously observed that the conditions for grant of bail were violated.
There was no specific condition imposed and, that was one of the grievances
of the respondent No. I. But learned counsel for the respondents rightly
~
submitted that even if no condition is specifically stipulated, the accused,
while on bail, is not supposed to tamper with evidence. There is no specific
H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A observation in-this regard in the impugned order. Cancellation of bail should
not be done in a routine manner. Where it appears to the superior Court. that
the Court granting bail. acted on irrelevant materials or .there was non-
application of mind or where Court does not take note of any statutory bar
to grant of bail, order for cancellation of bail can be made. These circumstances
B are illustrative and not exhaustive. The Court considering the application for
cancellation of bail has to take note of all relevant aspects.

9. In the circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the
matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application for
,\..
t
-
cancellati?n of bail. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before
C the concerned court on 14th June, 2007. Learned Chief Justice of the High
Court is requested to direct listing of the case before an appropriate Court.

IO. The interim order dated 12th May. 2006 passed by this Court shall
continue to be operative till the matter is disposed of afresh by the High
Court. It is made clear that by giving this direction, it shall not be construed
as if we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is
allowed to the aforesaid extent.

D.G. Appeal partly allowed.