Cancellation Of Bail Under Section 437 And Section 439 Of CrPC: Landmark Cases And Legal Implications

Introduction:

Welcome to the official blog of the Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates, where we are dedicated to providing litigation support services for matters related to the cancellation of bail. In today’s blog post, we aim to shed light on the prevailing issues surrounding the cancellation of bail, the legal framework in place for their protection, and the steps we can take as a society to combat these acts. Join us as we explore this critical subject and empower you with the knowledge to protect your rights and safety.

Bail serves as a crucial component of the criminal justice system, ensuring the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India provides provisions for granting bail under Sections 437 and 439. While bail is considered a fundamental right, it is not an absolute one. There are circumstances under which the court can cancel bail to safeguard the interests of justice and society.

1. Bail Cancellation under Section 437:

Section 437 of the CrPC grants powers to the court to grant bail in bailable offences, and in certain cases, in non-bailable offences. However, this provision also provides for the cancellation of bail if the accused violates any of the conditions of bail. The primary objective behind bail cancellation is to prevent abuse of the liberty granted to the accused and to ensure their presence during trial.

Landmark Case:

Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi (2001)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the court has the inherent power to cancel the bail granted under Section 437 when the accused violates the terms of the bail order. The court also clarified that a separate proceeding for bail cancellation is not required, and the court can take suo motu action or act on an application filed by the prosecution or aggrieved party.

2. Bail Cancellation under Section 439:

Section 439 of the CrPC empowers the High Court and the Court of Session to grant bail in cases not triable by the Magistrate. Additionally, this section also provides authority to these courts to cancel bail if certain circumstances warrant it.

Landmark Case:

Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002)

In this significant case, the Supreme Court clarified that the powers of the High Court and Court of Session to cancel bail under Section 439 are wide and can be exercised even during the pendency of the trial. The court further emphasized that the jurisdiction to cancel bail must be exercised judiciously and in exceptional situations where it is necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Recent Legal Precedents:

1. Digendra Sarkar’s Case – According to Section 438 of the CrPC, the application for anticipatory bail can be made even before the First Information Report (FIR). Hence, the FIR cannot be made mandatory for applying for anticipatory bail.
2. Suresh Vasudeva vs. State – Section 438(1) applies solely to non-bailable offences.
3. Sushila Agarwal vs. State – The Supreme Court ruled that anticipatory bail should not be granted for a fixed period. However, the court retains the authority to limit the duration of anticipatory bail if any special circumstances demand such action.
4. Gurbaksha Singh Sibbia and others vs. the State of Punjab – The Supreme Court opined that there are no provisions in the CrPC specifying a time-bound process for granting pre-arrest anticipatory bail. The court has the discretion to impose conditions for granting anticipatory bail, which may include setting a limited period of protection, based on the consideration of any relevant special circumstances.”

Is It Possible To Cancel Bail In The Absence Of Supervening Circumstances?

Absolutely. The cancellation of bail is not solely dependent on the occurrence of supervening circumstances, as stated in the Supreme Court case of Ash Mohammed Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another [2012 (4) Crimes 144(SC)]. There is no universal rule that applies in every case, and bail can be cancelled based on various grounds.

In Prakash Kadam and others Vs. Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta and another (2011 (6) SCC 189), the court highlighted factors to be considered while deciding on bail cancellation, including the gravity and nature of the offence, the prima facie case against the accused, and the accused’s position and status. Even in the absence of misuse of bail, if the charges are serious, bail may be cancelled.

The grounds considered for bail cancellation should be those that arise after the accused is released on bail, as mentioned in Nityanand Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2005) 4 SCC 178. The court has the power and discretion to critically analyze the bail order, ensuring a sound and just decision is reached, as the liberty of the accused is at stake.

However, when it comes to reappreciating evidence for the purpose of cancelling bail, courts generally avoid doing so. The case of Ramcharan Vs. State of M.P (2004 13 SCC 617), established that bail cannot be cancelled based on reappreciation of facts. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) restricts a court from altering or reviewing a case once a judgment or final order has been passed, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.

Distinguishing between an application for bail cancellation and an application challenging the grant of bail

Bail can be cancelled in the absence of supervening circumstances, based on grounds such as misuse of position, ignoring the accused’s criminal record, granting bail on untenable grounds, causing prejudice to justice due to serious discrepancies, or if the charges against the accused are very serious. However, reappreciation of facts is generally discouraged, and bail cancellation is more focused on the improper exercise of discretion or illegality in the bail order.

Conclusion

Bail is undoubtedly a valuable right afforded to an accused, ensuring their freedom until proven guilty. However, it is essential to strike a balance between this right and the interests of justice. Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC empower the courts to grant bail and cancel it if circumstances demand. The landmark cases discussed above highlight the significance of bail cancellation in maintaining the sanctity of the legal process. The power to cancel bail should be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional situations where there is a real risk of the accused obstructing the trial or absconding. Striking the right balance between protecting the accused’s rights and ensuring justice for the victims and society remains the primary responsibility of the judiciary in bail-related matters.

We are a law firm in the name and style of Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates at Gurugram and Rewari. We are providing litigation support services for matters related to the cancellation of bail (CrPC).