Bail Cancellation Mehnat.IN

This (cancellation of bail already granted) is usually possible only under such circumstances when the conditions which are set by the judge who granted bail have been violated by the accused. However, there can be any number of other circumstances under which this may be done. Such circumstances are not listed down anywhere. This is decided by judges keeping the facts and circumstances related to the crime and its aftermath in mind. Bail cancellation is just another one of an innumerable variety of things which are decided by courts in India by looking at the totality of facts and circumstances in the matter at hand. This is a fairly common legal concept, derivable intuitively by any thinking person.

Bail does not get automatically cancelled if an accused person violates his bail conditions. The prosecution side has to apply for cancellation of bail in the appropriate legal forum for such action. The Supreme Court had earlier taken the view that refusal to grant bail on the one hand, and cancellation of bail already granted on the other hand are two very different things, and should be treated as such. A double bench of the SC (A.S. Anand and M.K. Mukherjee) stated in Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, JT 1995 (1) (SC) 127: (1995) 1 SCC 349: (1994) Supp 6 SCR 69: (1994) 4 SCALE 1119 ^[3] that "Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of the bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction between the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."(sic)

This view was partly contradicted by another Supreme Court judgement made by Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra in 2011. In a matter related to a fake encounter (Prakash Kadam and ors. vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and ors., AIR 2011 SC 1945) ^[4], Katju authored a judgement laden with emotions and quotes from Shakespeare and Ved Vyas on behalf of the bench of which he was a part. The operative part of the judgement in the present context is as follows, "However, we are of the opinion that that is not an absolute rule, and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In considering whether to cancel the bail the Court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. If there are very serious allegations against the accused his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. Moreover, the above principle applies when the same Court which granted bail is approached for cancelling the bail. It will not apply when the order granting bail is appealed against before an appellate / revisional Court." Here, the bench in the present case is referring to the rule laid down by Anand and Mukherjee when they say "…we are of the opinion that that is not an absolute rule…". Both judgements are being used as precedents by lower courts today since they were both made by two judge benches.

It is sometimes very difficult for the prosecution or the complainant(s) to obtain cancellation of bail already granted. Lt. Gen. Tejinder Singh has applied for cancellation of bail granted to Gen. V.K. Singh in the criminal defamation case filed by the former ^[5] ^[6]. He is unlikely to get a favourable order, since this is a private case and the allegation has not been accepted to be prima facie correct. Sanjeev Nanda's bail in the BMW case was not cancelled inspite of clear misdemeanour by his lawyer R.K. Dewan. Manu Sharma's interim bail was cancelled by the Delhi High Court after one of the prosecution witnesses vanished, but he later managed to get regular bail ^[7] ^[8]. This was in the Jessica Lal murder case. The special cell of Delhi Police tried to get Sreesanth's bail in the IPL T20 spot-fixing case cancelled with no success. Shakeel Noorani filed an independent petition for cancellation of bail granted to Sanjay Dutt in the Bombay blasts case ^[9]. The petition was rejected.

It is worth noting in the Sanjay Dutt case above that a third party which is not a part of the prosecution, nor a complainant may appeal for cancellation of bail in a criminal case. This is one aspect of criminal cases where such interventions are allowed. There are apparent contradictions in Supreme Court judgements in this regard. Justice P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan stated in the above case that Noorani needed to file an FIR if he wished to resolve his financial dispute with Sanjay Dutt, instead of taking this route. They were also reported in the media (The Hindu, Chennai) as having said that “How is the producer involved in this (Mumbai blast) criminal case? You file an FIR. We are dismissing your petition.” On the face of it, this seems to fly against what was said in Rajpal vs. Jagvir Singh, 1979 All Cr Rep 514 ^[10] (Jai, J.R., Bail Law and Procedure, Universal Law Publishing Company, 2012, Delhi), wherein the Allahabad High Court held that the state was not the only eligible petitioner in any bail cancellation matter. Details of the judgment quoted by him in support of this weighty contention have not been supplied by Jai in his work, but they can be seen at at least one location on the internet ^[11]. It might be mentioned in the context of Noorani's bail cancellation application that sometimes the motives of litigants are not entirely transparent. This happens in all sorts of cases including PILs.

In R.Rathinam vs State By DSP, District Crime, [(2000) 2 SCC 391 ^[12]], it was held by a division bench of the Supreme Court that a third party can file an application for cancellation of bail. In such a way the third party is reminding the court of the need to exercise its own power to start suo motu proceedings in this regard. The judges were K Thomas and D Mohapatra. Thus it is now the law that third parties can file such applications.

Sometimes bail cancellation occurs or appears to be likely. You might be aware of the current 2G case in which CBI is trying to get Sanjay Chandra's bail cancelled, after he was allegedly caught discussing his case with the public prosecutor A.K. Singh. There are media reports which suggest that CBI has a bulletproof case in this matter. (It is a different matter that the CBI failed in getting Chandra's bail cancelled in the said matter from a bench led by H.L. Dattu ^[13], but the case for the prosecution was substantially strengthened.) In the Uphaar cinema case the Ansals were accused of stealing and/or meddling with court documents and their bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court ^[14] as a consequence (they were later on accused of bench-hunting by the aggrieved parties, when they tried to get their bail cancellation overturned and did things which amounted to seeking a particular bench). Vijay Sai Reddy obtained bail in the Jaganmohan Reddy disproportionate assets case from the CBI trial court. The Supreme Court later cancelled his bail ^[15]. As recently as the month of May in the current year, R.K. Agrawal's bail in the 2012 Rajya Sabha election cash-for-votes scam (Jharkhand) has been cancelled ^[16].

Something very different happened to S. Gopalakrishnan and V.S. Prabhakara Gupta in the Satyam Infoway corporate fraud case in which B. Ramalinga Raju is the main accused; the Supreme Court overruled the order of the High Court whereby they had been granted bail. This is different from cancellation of bail, as was explained in the reasoned order passed by P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan. ^[17]. It must be mentioned however that the position taken by the two learned SC judges seems to be in direct opposition to the legal maxim that every bail order is a final order, and that the only way to challenge a positive bail order is an indirect way, which is to apply for cancellation of bail.

If you manage to get anticipatory bail in your 498a case (u/s 498a/406/34 or as the case may be) then make sure that you follow all the conditions imposed upon you by the court scrupulously. Most important of all, do not contact or try to contact your accuser/accusers directly or indirectly. In fact, do not even mention her/them by name except in legal documents. Also, do not try to contact the public prosecutor at any time whatsoever before, during or after your trial. As far as the investigating officer is concerned, he will contact you himself whenever there is a need to do so. Do not try to initiate contact with him except under extraordinary circumstances. Another thing is that you need to make sure that the IO can contact you at all normal times. Above all remember the principle that an accused person should not try to influence the outcome of the trial in any manner except through his legal defence.

Bail is given in bailable cases as a matter of right. However it can be cancelled if the accused person is found to have tried to unduly influence the course of the case. Note that a magistrate can cancel bail granted by himself in a non-bailable matter, but he has no power to do so in a bailable case. Bail in such matters can only be cancelled by a sessions court or a higher court.

Another thing to be noted is that bail granted by a court can only be cancelled by a court which is equal or superior to it in the judicial hierarchy. This is applicable to all sorts of matters –bailable as well as non-bailable– with the proviso which is mentioned in the previous paragraph. A sessions court cannot cancel bail granted by a high court, and a high court cannot cancel bail granted by the Supreme Court. A single judge of the Supreme Court cannot cancel bail granted by a double bench of the same court. This last is applicable to high courts also.

previous article (about conditions and restrictions in AB orders) / हिंदी में (अग्रिम ज़मानत आदेश में संभावित शर्तों के बारे में लेख)।
next article (about the nationwide bail circus in India) / हिंदी में (भारतव्यापी तमाशा-ए-ज़मानत के बारे में)।

Bail Cancellation

Sources: