Prospective operation of non-bailable amendment preserves bail right; cancellation refused where discretion was properly exercised.

An amendment that made offences under the Central Excise Act cognizable and non-bailable was held to operate prospectively because it affected the accused's existing bail-related right and no clear retrospective intention was shown; the respondent therefore remained governed by the pre-amendment position for the alleged offence. On cancellation, the Court found no infirmity in the bail order under Section 439(2) CrPC, since bail could still be granted on proper grounds under Section 437 CrPC and the Sessions Court had exercised discretion within the legal framework. The challenge to the bail order was rejected and the respondent's release on bail was allowed to stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment making offences under the Central Excise Act cognizable and non-bailable operated retrospectively so as to affect the respondent's entitlement to bail. (ii) Whether the order granting bail called for interference under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment making offences under the Central Excise Act cognizable and non-bailable operated retrospectively so as to affect the respondent's entitlement to bail.

Analysis: The amendment relied upon was treated as affecting the accused's existing right to seek release on bail under the pre-amendment regime. The Court applied the settled distinction between substantive and procedural law and accepted the view that, absent express language or necessary implication showing retrospectivity, an amendment that divests a vested right is to be construed prospectively. On that approach, the respondent continued to be governed by the pre-amendment position for the offence alleged to have been committed before the amendment took effect.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to operate prospectively and not retrospectively against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the order granting bail called for interference under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Even assuming the offence to be non-bailable, the Court held that bail could still be granted under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on appropriate grounds and by recording reasons. The Sessions Court had exercised discretion in accordance with law, and no infirmity was shown in the bail order warranting cancellation. The circumstances did not justify upsetting the order merely on the ground that the investigation was pending or that a stronger view of the offence's nature was possible.

Conclusion: No ground for cancellation of bail was made out and interference was declined.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bail order failed, and the respondent's release on bail was allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment that changes the nature of an offence so as to take away an existing bail-related right is not retrospective unless such intention is clearly expressed or necessarily implied, and a bail order will not be cancelled where the court below has exercised discretion within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---