“Aslam Babalal Desai v State of Maharashtra” reported in 1992 (4) SCC 272, has laid down very succinctly the circumstances which would render the bail already granted to an accused to be cancelled. They are as follows:- • The accused mis-uses his liberty by indulging in a similar criminal activity; • Interferes with the course of investigation; • Attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses; • Threatens witness or indulges in activities which hamper smooth investigation; • Likelihood of the accused fleeing to another country; • Attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency; • Attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety etc Observation:- Once bail is granted, then the Court is generally very slow to again interfere with the personal liberty of the accused concerned and cancel his bail. This is because cancellation of bail results in taking away the liberty of a person, which a competent court had after applying its mind to the issue of whether to grant the bail or not decided in favour of the accused, after weighing all the pros and cons involved, thus giving pre-eminence to the liberty of the accused and releasing him on bail. In other words, depriving a person of his liberty once a conditional liberty (bail) has been granted to such a person by a competent court, is viewed as a harsh order and therefore the general approach of the Courts in matters of cancellation of bail, tends to tilt towards the accused. There have been a few instances where the Supreme Court has deemed it fit to cancel the bail and send the accused behind bars. One such instance is the judgment titled “Prakash Kadam & Ors v Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr” reported in 2011 (6) SCC 189, wherein this Hon’ble Court held as follows “ There is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is a likelihood of mis-use of bail..”. In this case, the accused were policemen who were involved in fake encounter killing, who were enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. On appeal the High Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The consideration which weighed with the Court was undoubtedly that the accused were policemen, whose duty it was to uphold the law, but who were in fact operating like ordinary criminals, which prompted the Supreme Court to make the following observation: “..In our opinion if crimes are committed by ordinary people, ordinary punishment should be given, but if the offence is committed by policemen much harsher punishment should be given to them because they do an act totally contrary to their duties..” The Supreme Court further thought it relevant to quote from ancient texts to underline the importance of arresting the dangerous trend of protectors turning predators in a state of lawlessness. “..When the rule of law collapses it is replaced by ‘Matsyanyaya’, which means the law of the jungle. In Sanskrit, the word ‘matsya’ means fish, and ‘matsyanyaya’ means a state of affairs where big fish devours the smaller ones…”
Posted on: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 07:51:05 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015