2004 (1) TMI 673 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Bail Cancellation for Witness Threats in Riot Case

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to cancel the appellant's bail due to allegations of threatening witnesses during a trial ... Whether the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for passing the order of cancellation of bail granted earlier? Issues Involved:1. Cancellation of bail granted to the appellant.2. Allegations of threatening witnesses.3. Judicial discipline regarding hearing of bail applications.4. Grounds for cancellation of bail.Detailed Analysis:1. Cancellation of Bail Granted to the Appellant:The Bombay High Court directed the cancellation of bail previously granted to the appellant. The appellant had been accused of instigating a mob leading to communal riots and the murder of one Chanderkant Arjun. The appellant was initially granted bail by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court after being in custody for over seven and a half months. However, the State of Maharashtra later filed an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging suppression of material facts.2. Allegations of Threatening Witnesses:The cancellation was primarily based on an affidavit by a Police Inspector, which stated that the appellant had threatened the complainant, Sunil Yadav, with dire consequences in the court premises during the trial. This incident was reported to have occurred on 16.7.2003 when the complainant was present in court pursuant to a summons. The affidavit indicated that a case (CR No.3097/2003) was registered under Section 188 IPC in relation to the threat.3. Judicial Discipline Regarding Hearing of Bail Applications:The appellant's counsel argued that the cancellation of bail should have been heard by the same judge who had initially granted the bail. This argument was based on the principle of judicial discipline and the convention that subsequent applications for the grant or cancellation of bail should be placed before the same judge. However, the Court noted that this is a desirable course but not a statutory requirement. The Court emphasized that the appellant must show how he was prejudiced by the deviation from this practice. In this case, the cancellation was based on new grounds (threatening witnesses) that were different from those considered when bail was initially granted.4. Grounds for Cancellation of Bail:The Court reiterated that the considerations for the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail are different. Bail can be canceled if the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, interferes with the course of investigation, attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, threatens witnesses, or engages in activities that would hamper the smooth investigation or trial. The Court cited the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that cancellation of bail is a harsh order and must not be lightly resorted to. In this case, the affidavit provided prima facie evidence of the appellant threatening witnesses, which justified the cancellation of bail.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's appeal and dismissed it. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to cancel the bail, noting that the learned Single Judge had provided cogent reasons for the cancellation. The Court also suggested that the trial court should complete the trial as early as practicable and that any fresh application for bail by the appellant should be dealt with in accordance with the law.