State Of Manipur vs Pheiroijam Joy Singh on 1 February, 2001

Gauhati High Court
State Of Manipur vs Pheiroijam Joy Singh on 1 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 CriLJ 2673
Bench: A Saikia


1. Heard Ms. Ch. Bidyamani Devi, learned P.P. and also Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bimol Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.12.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 90/99 arising out of FIR Case No. 179(11)99 LPS under Section 366/342/376/120-B IPC. On a pointed asking from this court, Ms. Bidyamani Devi, learned P.P. has submitted that this application may be treated only as an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 15.12.1999. The learned P.P. has strongly argued that the learned Sessions Judge has illegally and without considering the materials on record granted bail to the accused person, the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the seriousness and gravity of the offence. Save and except those she has not advanced by other grounds for cancellation of the said bail, granted in an offence under Section 376 IPC.

3. It is a settled position of law that the petition for cancellation of bail shall not be taken in such light manner. In a catena of decisions of the Apex Court, it was held that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of individual and it must not be tightly resorted to. The Apex Court had reiterated in its decision that there must be a very cogent and overwhelming grounds as well as compelling circumstances for which bail granted can be cancelled. The Apex Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi reported in AIR 1978 SC 961 held that rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail once granted. That is because cancellation of bail interferes with the liberty already secured by the accused either on the exercise of discretion by the court or by the thrust of law. In another case reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 (Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that very cogent and over whelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. Even where a prima facie case is established the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trail or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tempering with evidence.

4. In Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1993 SC 1, the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“The grounds for cancellation of bail under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to temper with evidence of witness, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.”

5. In the light of those above mentioned Apex Court decisions, the

submission made by the learned P.P. does not convince me a wee bit.

6. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 15.12.1999 granted bail to the accused person named in the FIR in an offence under Section 376 IPC. I have perused the judgment and on careful scrutiny of the same, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the entire matter at length considering the case record as well as the statement made by the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I find no illegality or perversity committed in granting bail to the accused person. The learned Sessions Judge has passed a reasoned judgment taking into consideration of all aspects of the matter.

7. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court has persuaded itself not to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail.

8. In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *