Inherent power to cancel bail in exceptional cases upheld, with Article 21 satisfied by procedure established by law.

The Supreme Court recognised that a High Court retains inherent power to cancel bail even in a bailable offence where exceptional facts show intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, or an attempt to abscond, because that power is preserved to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. It held that exercise of that jurisdiction does not violate Article 21, since deprivation of liberty under such an order is by procedure established by law. The Court also declined to disturb the High Court's factual finding of witness intimidation and tampering, finding no compelling basis for interference, while modifying the order to direct release on bail from the date specified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had inherent power to cancel bail granted in a bailable offence and commit the accused to custody to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; (ii) Whether the exercise of that power violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Whether the High Court's finding of intimidation and tampering with witnesses called for interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had inherent power to cancel bail granted in a bailable offence and commit the accused to custody to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

Analysis: The existing inherent powers of the High Court were recognised as continuing powers preserved by Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that, although the Code makes no express provision for cancellation of bail granted in a bailable offence, the High Court may in exceptional cases direct arrest and custody where the accused is intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence, or attempting to abscond. That jurisdiction is exercised only to prevent defeat of justice.

Conclusion: The High Court possessed inherent power to cancel bail in such exceptional circumstances.

Issue (ii): Whether the exercise of that power violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the word 'law' in Article 21 means enacted or State-made law. The inherent powers of the High Court, though historically existing, had been preserved and confirmed by legislative and constitutional provisions, including Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 225 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, deprivation of liberty pursuant to an order passed in exercise of that power was according to procedure established by law.

Conclusion: The exercise of the inherent power did not violate Article 21.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court's finding of intimidation and tampering with witnesses called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The Court declined to re-examine the factual finding in the absence of compelling reason. It found no basis to disturb the High Court's conclusion that the accused had interfered with prosecution witnesses.

Conclusion: The factual finding was not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the substantive challenges, but the order was modified to grant the appellant release on bail from the date specified by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's inherent power to cancel bail in a bailable offence, preserved by law, may be exercised in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and an order passed in that exercise is consistent with Article 21 because it is made according to procedure established by law.

---