{"id":198547,"date":"1977-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977"},"modified":"2019-03-02T08:47:31","modified_gmt":"2019-03-02T03:17:31","slug":"bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977","title":{"rendered":"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR   55, \t\t  1978 SCR  (1) 585<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Kailasam<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kailasam, P.S.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBASHIR AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/10\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR   55\t\t  1978 SCR  (1) 585\n 1977 SCC  (4) 410\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1986 SC2130\t (31)\n R\t    1987 SC 149\t (21)\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal  Procedure Code 1973--Ss. 167 (2) 437 (1)  and\t (5) -Grant  of ba\nil-Release of an accused because  challan  not\nfiled within 60 days from arrest-Deemed bail-If bail can  be\ncancelled as soon as challan is filed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe three appellants along with 8 others were prosecuted for\noffences  u\/s. 302 read with s. 149 I.P.C. for\tcausing\t the\ndeath  of one Sagru.  The F.I.R. was lodged on\tDecember  2,\n1975 and the three appellants and 8 others were arrested  on\nthe same day.  Though the other 8 were released on bail, the\nbail  applications of the three appellants were rejected  by\nthe Sessions Court because they were alleged to have  caused\nthe  injuries.\tThe High Court also declined to\t grant\tthem\nbail by an order dated February 5, 1976.  As no challan\t was\nfiled by the police in the case within 60 days from the date\nof  the arrest of the appellants they were released on\tbail\non February 23, 1976 u\/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. 1973.  Subsequently,\nthe police filed a challan and the Magistrate committed\t all\nthe eleven accused to the Sessions Court.\nAn  application\t for  cancellation  of the  bail  of  the  3\nappellants was filed before the Sessions Court on the ground\nthat  their  petitions for grant of bail  were\trejected  on\nmerits\tboth  by the Sessions Court and the High  Court\t and\nthat since challenge were filed the court should cancel\t the\nbail.\tThe  Sessions Judge relying on 1975 PLJ\t (Cri.)\t 143\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1950023\/\">(Ajaib\t Singh\t v.   State  of\t Punjab)<\/a>   held\t  that\t the\nconsiderations for grant of bail at the stage when no report\nU\/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed was entirely different because  if\nthe report is not produced within 2 months, the Court has no\noption\tbut to grant bail to the accused  howsoever  heinous\nthe nature of the offence may be.  Holding that when once  a\nreport\tunder  s. 173 Cr.P.C. is filed by  the\tpolice,\t the\ncourt  has  jurisdiction to cancel the\tbail,  the  Sessions\nCourt allowed the above application and cancelled the bail.\nAn appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling\nthe bailwas  dismissed by the High Court.\nThe  view  taken  by the High Court was\t challenged  in\t the\nappeal beforethis Court\t by  special leave on  the  ground\nthat when once the bail is grantedu\/s.\t    1672)   Cr.P.C.\nit cannot be cancelled on the mere ground that\tsubsequently\nthe  police had filed a challan but that the bail order\t can\nonly be cancelled under the provision of s. 437(5) Cr.P.C.\nSection 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 empowers\nthe Magistrate to authorise the detention of the accused  in\ncustody\t for  a term, not, exceeding 15 days in\t the  whole.\nThe  proviso,  however, provides that  no  Magistrate  shall\nauthorise  the\tdetention of the accused person\t in  custody\nunder that section for a total period exceeding 60 days\t and\nthat  on  the expiry of the said period of  sixty  days\t the\naccused\t person shall be released on bail if he is  prepared\nto  and does furnish bail and that every person released  on\nbail  under that section shall be deemed to be\tso  released\nunder  the  provisions of Chapter  XXXIII.   Section  437(1)\nprovides that any person accused of or suspected of the com-\nmission\t of any nonbailable offence may be released on\tbail\nbut  that  he  shall  not  be  released\t if  there   appears\nreasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty  of\nan  offence punishable with death or imprisonment for  life.\nSub-section  (2) of s. 437 empowers the court to release  an\naccused\t if there are not reasonable grounds  for  believing\nthat  the  accused  has committed  a  non-bailable  offence.\nSection 437(5) provides that any court which has released  a\nperson on bail under sub-s. (1 ) or sub-s. (2) might, if  it\nconsiders it necessary, so to do. direct that such person be\narrested and may be committed to custody.\n586\nAllowing the appeal,\nHELD : (1) As under s. 167(2) a person who has been released\non  the ground that he had been in custody for a  period  of\nover  60 days is deemed to be released under the  provisions\nof  Chapter XXXIII, his release should be considered as\t one\nu\/s  437(1)  or (2).  Section 437(5) empowers the  court  to\ndirect\tthat  the person so released may be arrested  if  it\nconsiders it necessary to do so.  The powers of the court to\ncancel bail if it considers it necessary is preserved in was\ns where a person has been released on bail u\/s 437(1) or (2)\nand these provisions are applicable to a person who has been\nreleased u\/s. 167(2) [589 G-H, 590 A]\n(2)As  the  provisions\tof  s. 437(1),\t(2)  and  (5)  are\napplicable  to a person who has been released  u\/s.  167(2),\nthe mere fact that subsequent to his release a challan hasbeen\nfiled  is not sufficient to commit him to custody.  In\tthis\ncase the bail wascancelled   and  the\tappellants   were\nordered to be arrested and committed tocustody\t  on\tthe\nground\tthat subsequently a charge sheet had been filed\t and\nthat before the appellants were directed to be released\t u\/s\n167(2),\t their\tbail petitions were dismissed on  merits  by\nSessions Court and the High Court. [590 B-C]\n(3)The\tcourt before directing the arrest of  the  accused\nand committing them tocustody\t should\t   consider    it\nnecessary to do so u\/s 437(5).\tThis may be done bythe\ncourt  coming to the conclusion that after the challan\t,lad\nbeen filed there are sufficient grounds that it is necessary\nthat he should be arrested and committed to custody.  It  is\nnecessary that the court should proceed on the basis that he\nhas  been deemed to have been released under s.\t 437(1)\t and\n(2). [590 D-E]\nRam Pal Singh and Others v. State of U.P. 1976 Cr.L.J.\t288,\napproved.\nThe  bail u\/s. 167(2) Cr.P.C. has the same incidents as\t the\nbail  granted  Linder Chapter XXXIII and is  accordingly  to\nremain valid till it is cancelled, and the cancellation of a\nbail can only be on the grounds known to law and the receipt\nof the charge sheet in court can by itself be no ground\t for\ncancellation of the bail. [590 F-G]\n(4)The cancellation of bail for the reasons stated by  the\nHigh Court is not sound. [590 H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal No.\t 517<br \/>\nof 1976.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated<br \/>\n27-8-1976  of  the Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court\tin  Criminal<br \/>\nMisc.  No. 4090-M of 1976.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   K. Mehta and P. N. Puri for the Appellants.<br \/>\nH.   S. Marwah and S. N. Sachthey for the Respondent.<br \/>\nThe judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nKAILASAM,  J.  This appeal is by special leave by the  three<br \/>\nappellants against the judgment of the High Court of  Punjab<br \/>\nand  Haryana  in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4090-M  of\t1976<br \/>\ndismissing  an\tapplication  under  section  439,   Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  Code, praying that the appellants be released  on<br \/>\nbail  during  the pendency of their trial in  a\t case  under<br \/>\nsection 304 read with section 148, Indian Penal Code.<br \/>\nThe  facts  of the case are briefly as follows.\t  The  three<br \/>\nappellants,  Bashir,  Kundan  and Sadie,  along\t with  eight<br \/>\nothers\tare being prosecuted for offences under section\t 302<br \/>\nread with section 149, section<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">587<\/span><br \/>\n347 read with section 149 and section 148 read with  section<br \/>\n147  Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of  one  Sagru<br \/>\nand  grievous  and simple injuries to three  others.   While<br \/>\neight  others  were released or bail,  the  appellants\twere<br \/>\nrefused bail as it was alleged that they caused injuries  to<br \/>\nSagru.\t The  First Information Report of  the\toffence\t was<br \/>\nlodged\ton  December 2, 1975 and the  three  appellants\t and<br \/>\neight  others  were arrested on the same  day.\t Though\t the<br \/>\nother  eight  accused  were  released  on  bail,  the\tbail<br \/>\napplication  of\t the three appellants was  rejected  by\t the<br \/>\nSessions  Court on December 15, 1975.  The High\t Court\talso<br \/>\ndeclined to release them on bail by an order dated  February<br \/>\n5,  1976.  But as no challan was filed by the police in\t the<br \/>\ncase  within sixty days from the date of the arrest  of\t the<br \/>\nappellants  they were released on bail on February 23,\t1976<br \/>\nunder  section\t167(2)\tof  the\t Criminal  Procedure   Code.<br \/>\nSubsequently  the  police filed challan and  the  Magistrate<br \/>\ncommitted  all the eleven accused to the Sessions Court\t and<br \/>\nreleased them including the appellants on bail.<br \/>\nThe  complainant  filed an application, out  of\t which\tthis<br \/>\nappeal arises, before the Sessions Court for cancellation of<br \/>\nthe  bail to the three appellants on the ground\t that  their<br \/>\npetitions for grant of bail were rejected on merits both  by<br \/>\nthe  Sessions Court and the High Court.\t The Sessions  Judge<br \/>\nrelying\t on a decision of the Punjab High Court reported  in<br \/>\n1975  PLJ (Cr1.) 143-Ajaib Singh vs.  State  of\t Junjab-held<br \/>\nthat the considerations for grant of bail at the stage\twhen<br \/>\nno  report under section 173, Criminal Procedure  Code,\t was<br \/>\nfiled  were entirely different because if the report is\t not<br \/>\nproduced within two months, the court has no, option but  to<br \/>\ngrant  bail to the accused howsoever the heinous  nature  of<br \/>\nthe  offence may be.  Holding that when once a report  under<br \/>\nsection 173, Criminal Procedure Code, is filed by the police<br \/>\nthe  court has jurisdiction to cancel, the bail allowed\t the<br \/>\napplication of the complainant and cancelled the bail.<br \/>\nAn appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling<br \/>\nthe bail was dismissed by the High Court.  It was  contended<br \/>\nbefore the High Court that when the appellants were released<br \/>\nunder the proviso to section 167(2) of the Code of  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  unless there was an allegation of  misconduct  or<br \/>\nmisuse of the terms of the bail bond by them the bail  order<br \/>\ncould  not be withdrawn.  It was further contended that\t the<br \/>\norder of bail could be, cancelled only under the  provisions<br \/>\nof section 437(5), Criminal Procedure Code, as the order  of<br \/>\nbail  passed  under section 167(2) is deemed to\t be  a\tbail<br \/>\norder passed under Chapter XXXIII, Criminal Procedure  Code.<br \/>\nDisagreeing  with the contention of the learned counsel\t for<br \/>\nthe appellants, the High Court held as follows<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;The order of bail is passed by the Magistrate<br \/>\n\t      in   such\t  cases\t  only\t because   of\t the<br \/>\n\t      technicalities in law, that is the failure  of<br \/>\n\t      the  investigating  agency  to  discharge\t its<br \/>\n\t      duties  in  time\tin  presenting\tthe  challan<br \/>\n\t      against the accused within the period directed<br \/>\n\t      by section 167, Criminal Procedure Code.\tThis<br \/>\n\t      bail  order is not on merits of the case.\t  As<br \/>\n\t      soon as that ground for which the court has no<br \/>\n\t      option but<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      588<\/span><br \/>\n\t      to release the accused on bail is fulfilled or<br \/>\n\t      complied with by the investigating agency, the<br \/>\n\t      Magistrate or the court of Session or the High<br \/>\n\t      Court  can  on  that ground  cancel  the\tbail<br \/>\n\t      allowed\tearlier.  When\tsuch  an  order\t  of<br \/>\n\t      cancellation  is passed it is to\tbe  presumed<br \/>\n\t      that the court, while cancelling the bail, has<br \/>\n\t      taken  into consideration the final report  of<br \/>\n\t      the  police  laid against the  accused,  first<br \/>\n\t      information  report, statement  under  section<br \/>\n\t      161,  Criminal Procedure Code, and  the  other<br \/>\n\t      material\tcollected by the police\t during\t the<br \/>\n\t      investigation of the case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The view taken by the High Court is challenged in the appeal<br \/>\nbefore\tus.   It was submitted that when once  the  bail  is<br \/>\ngranted\t under section 167(2), Criminal Procedure  Code,  it<br \/>\ncannot be cancelled on the mere ground that subsequently the<br \/>\npolice had filed a challan but that the bail order can\tonly<br \/>\nbe  cancelled  under  the  provisions  of  section   437(5),<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>We will now refer to the relevant provisions of the Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  Code.  Section 167(2) of the\t Criminal  Procedure<br \/>\nCode, Act 2 of 1974, is as follows :&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The  Magistrate to whom an accused person  is<br \/>\n\t      forwarded\t under this section may, whether  he<br \/>\n\t      has  or has not jurisdiction to try the  case,<br \/>\n\t      from time to time, authorise the detention  of<br \/>\n\t      the accused in such custody as such Magistrate<br \/>\n\t      thinks  fit, for a term not exceeding  fifteen<br \/>\n\t      days   in\t the  whole;  and  if  he   has\t  no<br \/>\n\t      jurisdiction to try the case or commit it\t for<br \/>\n\t      trial,   and   considers\t further   detention<br \/>\n\t      unnecessary,  he may order the accused  to  be<br \/>\n\t      forwarded\t  to   a  Magistrate   having\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      jurisdiction<br \/>\n\t      Provided that&#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   the\t Magistrate may authorise  detention<br \/>\n\t      of  the  accused\tperson,\t otherwise  than  in<br \/>\n\t      custody  of the police, beyond the  period  of<br \/>\n\t      fifteen days if he is satisfied that  adequate<br \/>\n\t      grounds exist for doing so, but no  Magistrate<br \/>\n\t      shall  authorise the detention of the  accused<br \/>\n\t      person  in  custody under this section  for  a<br \/>\n\t      total period exceeding sixty days, and on\t the<br \/>\n\t      expiry  of the said period of sixty days,\t the<br \/>\n\t      accused person shall be released on bail if he<br \/>\n\t      is  prepared  to and does\t furnish  bail;\t and<br \/>\n\t      every  person  released  on  bail\t under\tthis<br \/>\n\t      section  shall  be deemed to  be\tso  released<br \/>\n\t      under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the<br \/>\n\t      purposes of that Chapter;&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Sub-section (2) of section 167 and Proviso, (a) thereto make<br \/>\nit clear that no Magistrate shall authorise the retention of<br \/>\nthe accused person in custody under this section for a total<br \/>\nperiod\texceeding sixty days.  On the expiry of\t sixty\tdays<br \/>\nthe accused person shall be released on<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">589<\/span><br \/>\nbail  if  he is prepared to and does furnish bail.   So\t far<br \/>\nthere is no controversy.  The question arises as to what  is<br \/>\nthe  position  of the person so released when a\t challan  is<br \/>\nsubsequently  filed  by the police.  The  last\tsentence  in<br \/>\nproviso\t (a) is relevant.  It is &#8220;and every person  released<br \/>\non bail under this section shall be deemed to be so released<br \/>\nunder  the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes  of<br \/>\nthat  Chapter&#8221;.\t  Chapter XXXIII contains provisions  as  to<br \/>\nbail  and bonds.  The relevant sub-sections (1) and  (2)  of<br \/>\nsection 437 are<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;(1)  When any person accused of or  suspected<br \/>\n\t      of the commission of any non-bailable offence,<br \/>\n\t      is arrested or detained without warrant by  an<br \/>\n\t      officer  in  charge  of a\t police\t station  or<br \/>\n\t      appears  or  is brought before a\tCourt  other<br \/>\n\t      than  the High Court or Court of\tSession,  he<br \/>\n\t      may  be released on bail, but he shall not  be<br \/>\n\t      so released if there appear reasonable grounds<br \/>\n\t      for  believing that he has been guilty  of  an<br \/>\n\t      offence punishable with death or\timprisonment<br \/>\n\t      for life<br \/>\n\t      x\t\t\t    x\t\t\t   x<br \/>\n\t      x<br \/>\n\t      (2)If  it appears to such officer or  Court<br \/>\n\t      at any stage of the investigation, inquiry  or<br \/>\n\t      trial, as the case may be, that there are\t not<br \/>\n\t      reasonable  grounds  for\tbelieving  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      accused has committed a non-bailable  offence,<br \/>\n\t      but  that\t there are  sufficient\tgrounds\t for<br \/>\n\t      further  inquiry into his guilt,\tthe  accused<br \/>\n\t      shall,  pending such inquiry, be\treleased  on<br \/>\n\t      bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or<br \/>\n\t      Court,  on  the  execution by him\t of  a\tbond<br \/>\n\t      without\tsureties  for  his   appearance\t  as<br \/>\n\t      hereinafter provided.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Sub-section (1) of section 437 provides as to when bail\t may<br \/>\nbe  taken  in  case of a  non-bailable\toffence.   A  person<br \/>\naccused of a non-bailable offence may be released by a court<br \/>\nbut he shall not be so released if there appear\t reasonable<br \/>\ngrounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence<br \/>\npunishable  with  death or imprisonment for life.   The\t two<br \/>\nprovisos to sub-section (1) are not material and need not be<br \/>\nconsidered.   &#8216;Sub-section (2) to section 437 provides\tthat<br \/>\nif  the investigating officer or the court at any stage\t  of<br \/>\nthe investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be,  is<br \/>\nof  opinion  that  there  are  no  reasonable  grounds\t for<br \/>\nbelieving  that\t the accused has  committed  a\tnon-bailable<br \/>\noffence,  but  there  are  sufficient  grounds\tfor  further<br \/>\ninquiry\t into his guilt, pending such inquiry,\tthe  accused<br \/>\nshall be released on bail.  Subsection (5) to section 437 is<br \/>\nimportant.  It provides that any Court which has released  a<br \/>\nperson\ton  bail under sub-section (1) or  sub-section\t(2),<br \/>\nmay, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such<br \/>\nperson\tbe  arrested and commit him to\tcustody.   As  under<br \/>\nsection 167(2) a person who has been released on the  ground<br \/>\nthat he had been in custody for a period of over sixty\tdays<br \/>\nis  deemed  to be released under the provisions\t of  Chapter<br \/>\nXXXIII,\t his  release  should be  considered  as  one  under<br \/>\nsection 437(1) or (2).\tSection 437(5) empowers the court to<br \/>\ndirect\tthat  the person so released may be arrested  if  it<br \/>\nconsiders it necessary to do so.  The power of the court  to<br \/>\ncancel\tbail  if it considers it necessary is  preserved  in<br \/>\ncases where a person<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">590<\/span><br \/>\nhas  been released on bail under section 437(1) or  (2)\t and<br \/>\nthese  provisions  are applicable to a person who  has\tbeen<br \/>\nreleased under section 167(2).\tUnder section 437(2) when  a<br \/>\nperson is released pending inquiry on the ground that  there<br \/>\nare not sufficient grounds to believe that he had  committed<br \/>\na non-bailable offence may be committed to custody by  court<br \/>\nwhich released him on bail if it is satisfied that there are<br \/>\nsufficient grounds for so doing after inquiry is  completed.<br \/>\nAs  the\t provisions  of\t section 437(1),  (2)  and  (5)\t are<br \/>\napplicable  to a person who has been released under  section<br \/>\n167(2)\tthe  mere  fact that subsequent\t to  his  release  a<br \/>\nchallan\t has been filed is not sufficient to commit  him  to<br \/>\ncustody.   In  this  case the bail  was\t cancelled  and\t the<br \/>\nappellants  were  ordered to be arrested  and  committed  to<br \/>\ncustody\t on the ground that subsequently a  chargesheet\t had<br \/>\nbeen  filed and that before the appellants were directed  to<br \/>\nbe  released under section 107(2) their bail petitions\twere<br \/>\ndismissed  on  merits  by the Sessions Court  and  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\tThe fact that before an order was passed under\tsec-<br \/>\ntion 167(2) the bail petitions of the accused were dismissed<br \/>\non  merits is not relevant for the purpose of taking  action<br \/>\nunder  section\t437(5).\t Neither is it a valid\tground\tthat<br \/>\nsubsequent to release of the appellants a challan was  filed<br \/>\nby the police.\tThe court before directing the arrest of the<br \/>\naccused\t and committing them to custody should\tconsider  it<br \/>\nnecessary  to do so under section 437(5).  This may be\tdone<br \/>\nby the court coming to the conclusion that after the challan<br \/>\nhad been filed there are sufficient grounds that the accused<br \/>\nhad committed a nonbailable offence and that it is necessary<br \/>\nthat he should be arrested and committed to custody.  It may<br \/>\nalso order arrest and committal to custody on other  grounds<br \/>\nsuch as tampering of the evidence or that his being at large<br \/>\nis  not\t in the interests of justice.  But it  is  necessary<br \/>\nthat the court should proceed on the basis that he has\tbeen<br \/>\ndeemed to have been released under sections 437(1) and (2).<br \/>\nThe  learned counsel appearing for the respondents  referred<br \/>\nto  decisions  of  the\tvarious\t High  Courts  in  1976\t Cr.<br \/>\nL.J.118,  1976 Cr.  L. J. 288, 1977 Cr.\t L.J. 104, 1977\t Cr.<br \/>\nL.J., 394 and 1977 Cr.L.J. 486.\t These decisions except\t Ram<br \/>\nPal  Singh  and Others v. State of U.P.(1) are\tnot  on\t the<br \/>\npoint  and therefore need no discussion.  In Rain Pal  Singh<br \/>\nand  Others  vs.   State  of U.P.  a  single  Judge  of\t the<br \/>\nAllahabad  High\t Court\theld that  the\tbail  under  section<br \/>\n167(2),\t Criminal Procedure Code, has the same incidents  as<br \/>\nthe bail granted under Chapter XXXIII, and is accordingly to<br \/>\nremain valid till it is cancelled and the cancellation of a<br \/>\nbail canonly be on the grounds known to law and the  receipt<br \/>\nof the chiargesheet in court can by itself be no ground\t for<br \/>\ncancellation of the bail.  The view expressed by the learned<br \/>\nJudge is correct in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result we hold that the cancellation of the bail\t for<br \/>\nthe reasons stated by the High Court is not sound and direct<br \/>\nthat the appellants be set at liberty.\n<\/p>\n<p>P.H.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)  1976Cr.  L.J.288.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">591<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 55, 1978 SCR (1) 585 Author: P Kailasam Bench: Kailasam, P.S. PETITIONER: BASHIR AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/10\/1977 BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA CITATION: 1978 AIR 55 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1977-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-02T03:17:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-02T03:17:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977\"},\"wordCount\":2204,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977\",\"name\":\"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-02T03:17:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-02T03:17:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977","datePublished":"1977-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-02T03:17:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977"},"wordCount":2204,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977","name":"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-02T03:17:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bashir-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-3-october-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198547"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198547\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}