High Court cancels bail for serious offenses despite claimed sickness. Authority clarified.

The High Court canceled the bail granted to the respondent, who was charged with serious offenses under the Penal Code, including Sections 302 and 307, despite his claimed sickness of epilepsy. The Court clarified its authority to cancel bail granted by lower courts and emphasized that the sickness must pose a risk to the accused person's life to warrant bail under Section 497. Considering the gravity of the charges, the Court revoked the bail, directing the respondent to surrender and receive necessary medical treatment while in detention awaiting trial.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for cancellation of bail granted on the ground of sickness under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Discretion of the Sessions Judge in granting bail based on sickness.
3. Power of the High Court to cancel bail granted by a Subordinate court.
4. Standard for determining the sickness of an accused person under Section 497.
5. Considerations for granting bail in non-bailable offences.
6. Seriousness of the offences charged against the respondent.

Analysis:
The State filed an application seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent based on sickness under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent, charged under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Penal Code, was examined by a Medical Board, which concluded that his sickness, epilepsy, did not pose a risk to his life if he continued medical treatment in jail. The State argued that the respondent, with a history of violent behavior, had abused his liberty by attempting to attack a witness. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the bail should not be canceled as the Sessions Judge had not exercised discretion arbitrarily, and the law did not define a standard for assessing the sickness of an accused person (paras 1-4).

The High Court addressed the issue of its power to cancel bail granted by a Subordinate court, clarifying that it indeed possessed the authority under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court cited precedents supporting its power to cancel bail granted by lower courts. The Court then analyzed the standard for determining sickness under Section 497, emphasizing that the sickness must involve a risk to the accused person's life. Referring to a Hyderabad High Court decision, the Court concluded that the respondent's epilepsy, as assessed by the Medical Board, did not meet the criteria for bail under the proviso to Section 497(1) (paras 5-7).

Furthermore, the Court considered the seriousness of the offences with which the respondent was charged, citing the Supreme Court's observations on the factors to be considered when granting bail in non-bailable offences. The Court highlighted the importance of factors such as the nature of the offence, the possibility of the accused's presence at trial, and the interests of the public. Considering the gravity of the charges against the respondent and the Medical Board's report, the Court decided to cancel the bail and directed the respondent to surrender, emphasizing the need for proper medical treatment during his detention as an under-trial prisoner (paras 9-10).

---