Summary
The de facto complainant challenged the grant of anticipatory bail to an accused with a long criminal history in a case under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 IPC. Applying the principles on cancellation of bail from Deepak Yadav, the Court held that the High Court's order suffered from no fundamental error of law since it had considered the accused's antecedents and the offences were non-heinous and triable by a Magistrate; the appeal was dismissed with a condition of monthly reporting to the police station.
Issues
- Whether anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to an accused described as a habitual offender with numerous FIRs should be cancelled by the Supreme Court at the instance of the de facto complainant.
- What test governs an appellate court's interference with an order granting bail or anticipatory bail.
Provisions considered
- Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court had granted anticipatory bail under Section 438. The Court tested the order on whether the High Court committed any serious error of law in the facts and circumstances, and found none: the High Court had elaborately considered the accused's criminal cases and the offences were not heinous. (¶¶ 2, 9, 10)
- Sections 195A, 294 and 506, Penal Code, 1860The offences alleged in the FIR. The Court noted that they are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and none carries a sentence of more than seven years; since the earlier offence in respect of which threats were made is itself Magistrate-triable, the present offence is also Magistrate-triable in terms of Section 195A. (¶¶ 2, 9, 10)
Held
- Bail once granted is not to be cancelled mechanically; very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are needed. Apart from supervening circumstances (interference with justice, absconding, misuse of bail, tampering with evidence), a superior court may set aside a grant of bail where the court below relied on irrelevant material, ignored relevant material or the accused's past record, granted bail on untenable grounds or in a case too serious to warrant it, or passed a perverse order; such a case is in a different compartment from cancellation for misconduct. (¶ 8)
- Once the High Court has granted anticipatory bail, the question of cancellation is to be tested on whether the High Court committed any serious error of law in granting it in the facts and circumstances of the case. (¶ 10)
- Although a habitual offender ordinarily ought not to be released on bail in a routine manner, where the High Court has elaborately dealt with the accused's criminal history and the offences are not heinous but are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class with sentences not exceeding seven years, the grant of anticipatory bail suffers from no fundamental error of law and does not warrant interference. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Having regard to the accused's criminal record, he was directed, as and when released on bail in other cases, to report to the concerned police station on the 1st or 2nd day of every month during the trial and not to be involved in any other criminal activity, failing which the complainant or the State may move the High Court for cancellation of bail. (¶ 10)
Result
Leave granted; appeal dismissed; the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail upheld, with a direction that respondent no. 2, on release in other cases, report monthly to the police station during trial and refrain from criminal activity, failing which the appellant or the State may seek cancellation of bail before the High Court.