PETITIONER: DOLAT RAM Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT24/11/1994 BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) CITATION: 1995 SCC (1) 349 JT 1995 (1) 127 1994 SCALE (4)1119 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In a case arising out of FIR No. 735 dated 8-11-1993,
relating to the alleged dowry death of Smt Sunita wife of
Anil Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak
granted anticipatory bail to the parents and the brother of
the husband of the deceased Smt Sunita and directed that
they be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in
the sum of Rs 10,000 each with one surety each of the like
amount in the event of their arrest to the satisfaction of
the Arresting Officer. No bail has however been granted to
the husband Anil Kumar. The State of Haryana filed a
petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking
cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted to the
appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on
12-11-1993. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by
his order dated 8-9-1994, cancelled the bail observing:
“Dowry death is a serious matter and cannot be
taken so lightly. No positive finding has
been recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge
in his order to the effect that the
respondents and the deceased were living
separately. No prima facie case is made out
which could justify the grant of anticipatory
bail. To my view of thinking, concession of
anticipatory bail granted by the Additional
Sessions Judge, was totally uncalled for. The
order dated 12-11-1993 is, therefore, set
aside and the respondents are directed to be
taken into custody.”
The appellants are aggrieved of the cancellation of the
anticipatory bail, granted to them. Hence this appeal.
3. It appears to us that whereas the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was not justified in observing in the last
paragraph of his order while granting anticipatory bail “it
appears that possibly these accused-appellants have been
roped in falsely”, at that initial stage, when possibly the
investigation was not even completed let alone, any evidence
had been led at the trial, the High Court also fell in error
in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the
appellants for the reasons, which have been extracted by us
above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had noticed
that even according to the statement in the FIR, the
appellants were living separately from the deceased and her
husband and that the factum of separate residence was also
supported by the ration card. These considerations were
relevant considerations for dealing with an application for
grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial
stage and the cancellation of 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 the bail, already granted.
Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail,
broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference
or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the
due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to
the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court,
on the basis of material placed on the record of the
351
possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail. However, 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 the trial. These principles, it
appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it
decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court
it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors
relevant for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the
first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.
5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the appellants, for the reasons
given by the High Court, was not justified. Nothing has
been brought to our notice either from which any inference
may possibly be drawn that the appellants have in any
manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during the
intervening period.
6. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the
impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 12-11-1993.
353