Cancellation Of Bail And Its Principles
Cancellation of Bail — Overview
Bail is a legal mechanism that allows an accused person to be released from custody, usually under certain conditions, while awaiting trial or further investigation. However, bail is not an absolute right — it is a privilege granted by the court, and under certain circumstances, the court may cancel or revoke bail.
When and Why is Bail Cancelled?
Cancellation (or revocation) of bail occurs when the court decides to withdraw the bail already granted to the accused. This usually happens when:
The accused misuses the liberty granted by bail.
The accused tampers with evidence or influences witnesses.
The accused commits another offense during the bail period.
The accused attempts to flee or evade the court.
New facts or evidence emerge that justify canceling the bail.
Non-compliance with bail conditions.
Principles Governing Cancellation of Bail
Bail is a Privilege, Not a Right: Courts exercise caution in canceling bail because bail is considered a privilege.
Prima Facie Case: The court must be satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case against the accused justifying cancellation.
New Material/Evidence: The cancellation is often based on fresh material or evidence coming to light.
Fair Opportunity: The accused must be given a fair opportunity to be heard before cancellation.
Balance of Justice: The court weighs the interests of justice, including the rights of the accused and the society.
Power of the Court: Usually exercised by the Court which granted bail or a higher court with jurisdiction.
Detailed Case Laws on Cancellation of Bail
1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632
Facts:
Bail was granted to the accused in a criminal case. Subsequently, the State filed a petition to cancel the bail alleging misuse.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that bail is a matter of grace and not a matter of right. However, cancellation of bail should be on strong grounds and cannot be lightly exercised. The Court emphasized that bail can only be canceled if there is a strong prima facie case and the accused is likely to misuse the liberty.
Principle:
Cancellation of bail requires more serious grounds than those for granting bail. The Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable apprehension of misuse or flight risk.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, AIR 1977 SC 2447
Facts:
Bail was granted to an accused who then tried to influence witnesses. The prosecution moved for cancellation of bail.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated that bail is a privilege. Cancellation can be ordered when the accused violates conditions of bail or tampers with evidence. The Court emphasized the need to ensure that the accused does not misuse bail by obstructing the course of justice.
Principle:
Violation of bail conditions or interference with the administration of justice is a ground for cancellation of bail.
3. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, AIR 2005 SC 239
Facts:
An accused was granted bail in a high-profile murder case. Later, it was found that the accused was allegedly tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
Held:
The Supreme Court canceled the bail, stating that if there is a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, bail must be canceled.
Principle:
The Court stressed that the protection of the integrity of the judicial process overrides the privilege of bail.
4. Mohd. Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2018 SC 2233
Facts:
The accused was granted bail, but there were allegations of commission of another offense while on bail.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that commission of a fresh offense during the bail period is a good ground for cancellation of bail.
Principle:
Bail can be canceled if the accused commits another crime or acts in a manner indicating a threat to society while on bail.
5. Union of India v. Sanjiv Coke Manufacturing Company, AIR 1995 SC 45
Facts:
The accused was granted bail, but later the prosecution sought cancellation alleging that the accused was tampering with the investigation.
Held:
The Supreme Court observed that cancellation of bail can be ordered where there is evidence that the accused is likely to tamper with evidence or cause obstruction to the investigation.
Principle:
The court laid down that bail cancellation is justified to prevent obstruction of justice.
6. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40
Facts:
The accused was granted bail in a complex economic offense case but was suspected of interfering with witnesses.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of interference with the judicial process are key factors in cancellation of bail.
Principle:
In cases involving serious offenses, courts must be cautious while granting bail, and if bail is granted, it must be revoked if evidence shows obstruction of justice.
Summary of the Principles Derived From These Cases:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Bail is a privilege, not a right | Courts grant bail as a matter of grace, not obligation. |
| Strong prima facie case for cancellation | Cancellation requires a stronger case than granting bail. |
| Fresh evidence or misconduct | Cancellation often depends on new evidence or violation of bail conditions. |
| Protection of judicial process | Bail can be canceled if the accused interferes with witnesses or evidence. |
| Fair hearing | The accused must be given an opportunity before cancellation. |
| Seriousness of the offense | More serious offenses have stricter scrutiny for bail cancellation. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments