1977 (12) TMI 141 - SC - Indian Laws

Sessions Judge's premature bail grant cancelled for failing to consider witness tampering concerns in death penalty case

The SC dismissed an appeal challenging the HC's cancellation of bail granted by Sessions Judge in a case involving offences punishable with death or life ... Validity of bail order passed by Sessions Judge - reasonable suspicion of commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life - Apprehension of tampering with witnesses - role of the High Court and Sessions Court in bail matters - HELD THAT:- In the peculiar nature of the case revealed from the allegations and the position of the appellants in relation to the eye witnesses it was incumbent upon the Sessions Judge to give proper weight to the serious apprehension of the prosecution with regard to tampering with the eye witnesses, which was urged before him in resisting the- application for bail. The matter would have been different if there was absolutely no basis for the apprehension of the prosecution with regard to tampering of the witnesses and the allegation- rested only on a bald statement. The learned Sessions Judge was not alive to the legal position that there was no substantive evidence yet recorded against the accused until the eye witnesses were examined in the trial which was to proceed unimpeded by any vicious probability. The witnesses stated on oath u/s. 164. Cr. P.C. that they had made the earlier statements due to pressurisation by some of the appellants. Where the truth lies will he determined at the trial. The High Court took note of this serious infirmity of approach of the Sessions Judge as also the unwarranted manner boarding on his prematurely commenting on the merits of the case by observing that 'such deposition cannot escape a taint of unreliability in some measure or other'. The only question which the Sessions Judge was required to consider at that stage was whether there was prima facie case made out, as alleged, on the statements of the witnesses and on other materials. There appeared at least nothing at that stage against the statement of ASI Gopal Das who had made no earlier contradictory statement. 'The taint of unreliability' could not be attached to his statement even for the reason given. by the learned Sessions Judge. Whether his evidence will ultimately be held to be trustworthy will be an issue at the stage of trial. In considering the question of bail of an accused in a nonbailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, it is necessary for the court to consider whether the evidence discloses a prima facie case to warrant his detention in jail besides the other relevant factors referred to above. As a link in the chain of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is also relying on the conduct of some of the appellants in taking Sunder out of Police lockup for making what is called a false discovery and it is but fair that the Panch witness in that behalf be not allowed to be got at. We may repeat the two paramount considerations, viz. likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a court of justice. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There cannot ban inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail. In dealing with the question of bail under Section 498 of the old Code under which the High Court in that case had admitted the accused to bail, this Court in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [1961 (9) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT], while setting aside the order of the High Court granting bail, made certain general observations with regard to the principles that should govern in granting bail in a non-bailable case We are of the opinion that the above observations equally apply to a case under Section 439 of the new Code and the legal position is not different under the new Code. We are satisfied that the High Court has correctly appreciated the entire position and the Sessions Judge did not at the stage the case was before him. We will not, therefore, be justified under Article 136 of the Constitution in interfering with the discretion. exercised by the High Court in cancelling the bail of the appellants in this case. We find that the case is now before the committing Magistrate. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge.2. Judicial discretion in granting bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.).3. Apprehension of tampering with witnesses.4. Prima facie case evaluation.5. Procedural aspects under Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr. P.C.6. The role of the High Court and Sessions Court in bail matters.Detailed Analysis:1. Cancellation of Bail Granted by the Sessions Judge:The appeals were directed against the Delhi High Court's judgment canceling the bail orders issued by the Sessions Judge. The appellants, ranging from high-ranking police officials to constables, were accused of being part of a criminal conspiracy to murder a notorious dacoit named Sunder. The High Court set aside the Sessions Judge's orders, citing a failure to consider the prosecution's grave apprehension regarding witness tampering.2. Judicial Discretion in Granting Bail under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C.:The Sessions Judge granted bail to the appellants, stating that there was little probability of them tampering with witnesses or fleeing from justice. However, the High Court found that the Sessions Judge did not exercise judicial discretion on relevant principles and factors. The High Court emphasized the nature of the offense, the character of the evidence, and the reasonable apprehension of witness tampering as critical considerations in bail matters.3. Apprehension of Tampering with Witnesses:The prosecution argued that the appellants, due to their positions and influence, posed a grave risk of tampering with witnesses. The Sessions Judge dismissed this concern, stating that the witnesses had already tampered with their evidence by making contradictory statements. The High Court, however, noted that the Sessions Judge failed to give proper weight to the prosecution's apprehension, especially given the appellants' positions relative to the eye witnesses.4. Prima Facie Case Evaluation:The High Court found that the Sessions Judge prematurely commented on the merits of the case by suggesting that the witnesses' depositions were unreliable. The High Court emphasized that at the bail stage, the focus should be on whether a prima facie case exists based on the statements of witnesses and other materials, not on the credibility of the evidence.5. Procedural Aspects under Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr. P.C.:The judgment discussed the procedural nuances of Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr. P.C. Section 437 deals with bail by Magistrates and imposes restrictions on granting bail for offenses punishable with death or life imprisonment unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. Section 439 confers special powers on the High Court and Sessions Court to grant or cancel bail, without the restrictions imposed on Magistrates. The High Court can cancel bail granted by the Sessions Judge if it finds that the judicial discretion was not exercised properly.6. The Role of the High Court and Sessions Court in Bail Matters:The High Court has the authority to cancel bail granted by the Sessions Court if it finds that the latter did not consider relevant factors or exercised its discretion improperly. The judgment clarified that the High Court's jurisdiction in bail matters is not excluded by the new Code, and it can intervene to ensure justice. The High Court's decision to cancel the bail was upheld, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and the prevention of witness tampering.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to cancel the bail granted by the Sessions Judge. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offense, the character of the evidence, and the potential for witness tampering in bail decisions. The trial was ordered to proceed expeditiously, with a focus on examining key witnesses first. The judgment highlighted the judicial discretion required in bail matters and the procedural safeguards under Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr. P.C.