Reply To: Conscious

Checkout Forums Civil Law Discourse Conscious Reply To: Conscious


Cancellation of Bail


AIR 2022 SC 2514

Supreme Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana [below] laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are :-

(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner

(iv) Possibility of accused absconding

(v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail

(vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.

It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled :-

a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.

b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.

c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail.

d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.

e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.

f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.

g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.

In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another [18] , the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and observed as under :-

“12 …It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court”

Apex  Court in Mahipal (Supra) held that: –

“17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment.”

A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam And Others Vs.  Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta And Another [19] held that:-

“18. 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 serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him.

19 . In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail. that factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.”

Coming to the present case at hand, the Respondent No.2/Accused was arrested on 13.01.2021 subsequent to which, he had applied for regular bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected on the ground that he is named in the FIR on the basis of the information provided by the deceased himself and that the same has been clarified after perusal of the documents/forms that the bullet was shot by the Respondent No. 2/Accused himself. Being aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.2/Accused filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C before the High Court seeking regular bail. The High Court vide its impugned order granted bail to the Respondent No.2/Accused without considering the relevant facts and circumstances.

Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana(Koli), (2021) 6 SCC 230
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528
Babu Singh v. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu, (2012) 9 SCC 446
Ranjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 16 SCC 797
Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 16 SCC 508
Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406
State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra, (2018) 10 SCC 516
‘Y’ v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2022 decided on 19.04.2022
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia, (2020) 2 SCC 118
Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349
Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 16 SCC 508
Prakash Kadam v. Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189


  • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by advtanmoy.
  • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by advtanmoy.