Dinesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another
! "#"
()*
$+ , *-./ 0
1** 2 (+ 3
- *4
*
$ 56$
2 . * % $ 78,39 )( $ $
*-6/:,39 )(
$ 9 ./88;, ,+
. ,
*4
2-.
-;* ;3 )4 +: )*
'#,33& &,8*3 )2
, *)3:3, 32)
*&%,'!,','!<,'!#,'<& "! ( ,93 333'
& :+ 333 2**
* 38,3:3=
>% ?
* -) /4 ( -)*, ;- -*
;
4+3(
(- )4 +::+*:/ 8- 3 33 2**
*38,33
44)-()*-- 8-*4- 8/ *33&!
'
&#,*)
3(
;*83 :* 3, : --;*(*(
-*)
3(
3-*,;* ))* ((3**4
-3)93- *
*3
*)
33(-- 3
*+ 34
4
(-8/ -(()-4 ****
-4 4+83 :* 3,-3: 393 *)
33-
),;*( 3--*
*)
3(
(-4 4+,( ;-)- -8/ *;* 3,* -) 3:
@*
39+ (4 ****
*4
33
4 44 ),3*4*9), ;-*;**3:+ 32) *
:-( (*4
&--33
; ( +4+
9 8-3 3) *(
,( 3
/ -*4
-4 )4*(
(:-9: >4 3 :+
A:24/
)* ( B14 ./-9 2 C: 3
-D = / 44 * &&!&%&&! (&*
(26= ?
"''%"'" (&,3)33
'
& &?
- )* )4 +:-3: ;3:+-*8-
/ -% % ; (-3)*3 )*, ;-)-*-;*)-83 32)
* ', 3 ;- 2)
&%
- ( - 3)*3 )- 83- 3:(
A:24/
;*-3:+- 4>
* 3 %
9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to recapitulate the wellsettled legal principle that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessary that 'cogent and overwhelming reasons' are present for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in / 3 -*9* 2 + &, (1995) 1 SCC 349 observed that:
BRejection of bail in a nonbailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation
of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail.However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." These principles have been reiterated time and again, more recently by a 3-judge Bench of this Court in X vs. State of Telegana and Another. (2018) 16 SCC 511
10. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system. This Court has repeatedly viewed that while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked." - ( *3 4 )4* : 74 / 3 ;-
*3 8-4
(
(:-9: 3:+
A:24/
)* ( B/ 9 $ $ -//3-9
D,E / 44
!"# (,* 8 (26= ?
<
(F
- 4* )*, - *
3
- 4 *4
%2-*4
-33+C 3- 9*8
-*
8
:+-4
-*4
/43
(;--3) * (3/ *
(C*) :*3-
)**
(:8 3 -/ ---3:*)
33 - () *9 (
(:*4 3 :+ 3) *
-4* )*,-*
*)-8
-4
33
) % 4 - 9*8
---3)
)3 + /()8 8-: 6 3
(33 2**
*38 (4* 8-) 3,8 3-: 9 883 -4 )4* 33 ;
:+
A:24/) (
(:,( 3
*
) )-:
*/**3
$+ , =. ?
* G--*
3H*47 8 *H
G--4 : *H
'