2007 (4) TMI 768 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Revokes Bail for Accused After Charge Upgrade, Emphasizes Proper Procedure for Bail Applications.

Hamida Versus Rashid and Ors.

Hamida Versus Rashid and Ors. - 2007 (5) SCR 937, 2008 (1) SCC 474, 2007 (6) JT 392, 2007 (6) SCALE 517 Issues Involved:1. Grant of bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. Conversion of the offence from Sections 324, 352, and 506 IPC to Section 304 IPC.3. Application and scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.4. Procedural requirements for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.5. Subsequent orders for bail under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:The appellant, Hamida, challenged the High Court's order that allowed the accused to remain on bail even after the offence was converted to Section 304 IPC. The High Court had directed that the accused, initially granted bail for offences under Sections 324, 352, and 506 IPC, would continue to remain on bail for the more serious offence under Section 304 IPC upon furnishing personal bonds and sureties.2. Conversion of the Offence:The case originated from an FIR lodged by Hamida, alleging that the accused attacked her husband, Balla, leading to his serious injury and subsequent death. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 324, 352, and 506 IPC, and the accused were granted bail. After Balla's death, the offence was converted to Section 304 IPC. The accused then sought a direction from the High Court to remain on the same bail, which was granted.3. Application and Scope of Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. However, it should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases. The Court cited several precedents, including Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra and State v. Navjot Sandhu, to outline the principles guiding the use of inherent powers. The Court reiterated that inherent power should not be used when there is a specific provision in the Code for redressal.4. Procedural Requirements for Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant's contention that the High Court erred in using its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to grant bail. The proper procedure, as per Section 439 Cr.P.C., required the accused to surrender and apply afresh for bail after the offence was converted to Section 304 IPC. The accused circumvented this procedure by directly approaching the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.5. Subsequent Orders for Bail under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC:The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had framed charges under Section 302 IPC against the accused, and the High Court had passed subsequent orders allowing them to remain on bail for this offence. These orders were also set aside on the same grounds, as they were based on the initial erroneous order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order dated 1.7.2005 and all subsequent orders that allowed the accused to remain on bail for the offences under Section 304 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused were directed to be taken into custody immediately but were permitted to apply for bail afresh in accordance with the law. The Court stressed that the High Court should exercise its inherent powers judiciously and not entertain petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to circumvent established procedures, which could lead to miscarriage of justice.