Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The second respondent/A-11 did not file any counter. During hearing, learned Senior Counsel Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao appearing for the petitioner reiterated the grounds raised in the grounds of petition, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar , Maruti Nivrutti Navale v. State of Maharashtra to contend that the Sessions Judge totally ignored the principles while granting pre-arrest bail. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner drawn attention of this Court to Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan where the Apex Court pointed out as to whether bail can be cancelled by exercising power under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court, judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Basit alias Raju and others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another where the Apex Court drew the distinction line between review/recall/quashment from cancellation of bail order. Finally, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that filing of successive bail applications without any changed circumstances and obtaining pre-arrest bail from the in-charge officer would amount to bench haunting and placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagmohan Bahl and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another . On the strength of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner sought to set-aside/quash/cancel the impugned order.

There is a little controversy regarding cancellation of bail or setting-aside or annulment of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court regarding entertainment of petition to set-aside or cancel such order.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that, in a regular bail or anticipatory bail, a direction can be given to surrender before concerned police after setting aside or cancelling the order of regular bail or anticipatory bail in few circumstances. But, Section 439(2) Cr.P.C is silent as to under what circumstances such direction can be given. But, there are divergent views expressed by different Courts. One view is that, when, either regular or anticipatory bail is granted, a petition for cancellation can be filed before the Court which granted the bail, either regular or anticipatory. The other view is that, such application has to be filed only before the higher Court, challenging the order of bail, either regular or anticipatory, granted by the Subordinate Court. (vide Abdul Basit alias Raju and others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another (referred supra)).

The same principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Padmakar Tukaram Bhavnagare and another v. State of Maharashtra and another (referred supra).

In view of the principles laid down in the above judgments, the possibility for cancellation of a bail may be due to supervening circumstances, i.e. circumstances intervening between the date of granting bail and before termination of criminal proceedings. But, in this case, the order passed by the in-charge Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.3726 of 2017 under Section 438 Cr.P.C granting anticipatory bail to the second respondent/A-11 is under challenge in a higher forum. Request of the petitioner is in consonance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Abdul Basit alias Raju and others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another (referred supra). Therefore, this Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C to quash or set-aside or annul the order passed by the in-charge Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.3726 of 2017, subject to availability of grounds to exercise such power.

The Division Bench of the Apex Court in Abdul Basit alias Raju and others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another (referred supra) again referred the judgments of Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (referred supra), Puran v. Rambilas & Anr (referred supra), Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and another (referred supra), Ranjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa held that, although the court granting bail can cancel the bail on ground of accuseds misconduct or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail, however, in view of express bar contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C, it cannot review its order as to grant of bail on ground of it being unjustified, illegal or perverse. Such challenge to bail order on ground of it being illegal or contrary to law can be determined only by the court superior to the court which granted bail. Thus, from the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, including the judgment in Abdul Basit alias Raju and others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another (referred supra) and other judgments of the Supreme Court, when the order of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the second respondent/ A-11 is challenged on the ground that it is unjustified or illegal or perverse, the only course open to the petitioner herein is to file a petition before the Superior Court i.e. the High Court and if the petition is filed for cancellation on the ground of supervening circumstances, the bail liable to be cancelled, the petitioner can approach the Sessions Court which granted the bail, and need not approach the Superior Court to claim such relief.