DOLAT RAM AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

                      DOLAT RAM AND ORS.                                  A
                               v.
                     THE STATE OF HARYANA

                        NOVEMBER 24, 1994

           [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.]                       B

     Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 304B-Dowry Death Case-
Cance/lation of anticipatory bail-Grounds for;-Bail once granted should
not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.

     In a case relating to the alleged dowry death, the Addi. Sessions C
Judge granted anticipatory bail to the parents and the brother of the
husband. The State filed a petition seeking cancellation of the
anticipatory bail, granted to the appellants. The High Court cancelled
the bail observing that no positive finding has been recorded by the
Addi. Sessions Judge in his order to the effect that the respondents and D
the deceased were living separately. The High Court further held that
no prima-facie case was made out which could justify the grant of
anticipatory bail.

    This appeal has been filed against the order of the cancellation of
the anticipatory bail.
                                                                          E
    Allowing the appeal, this Court

     HELD : 1.1. Whereas the Addi. Sessions Judge was not justified in
observing while granting anticipatory bail that possibly the accused-
applicants have been roped in falsely, at that initial stage, when F
possibly the investigation was not even completed let alone any
evidence had been led at the trial, the High Court also fell in error in
cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants. The Addi.
Sessions Judge had noticed that even according to the statement in the
FIR, the appellants were living separately from the deceased and her
husband, and that the factum of separate residence was also supported G
by the ration card. These considerations were relevant considerations
for dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail. [71 E, F]

     1.2. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and
the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with
no different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are H
                                      69
     70                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1994) SUPP. 6 ~.C.R

A   necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail, ~lready
    granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail,
    broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to
    interfere wit_h the due process of administration of justice or evasion ·or
    attempt to evade the due process of justice or. abuse of the concession
    granted to the accused in any manner. The sa~isfaction of the Court, on
B the basis of material placed on the record of the .possibility of t~e
    accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of
  · bail. However, bail once granted . should not be cancelled in a
    mechanical inanner without considering wh_ether 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
c ·bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by
    the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The
    High Court overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for
    rejecting bail in      ano.n-bailable case iii the first instance and the
    cancellation 'or bail already granted. [71 G, H~ 72 A to C]
D        1.3. This Court is satisfied that the cancellation of anticipatory bail
    to the appellants, for the reasons given by the 'High Court, was not
    justified. Nothing h_as been brought to the notice of this Court either
    from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the appellants ·
    have in any manner, whatsoever, abused the ·concession of bail during
E   t~e iiltervening_ p~riod. [72 DJ                                           ·
                                                                   .         .
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 839
    of 1994. · ·

         From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.94 of the Punjab an~ Haryana
    ·High Cour(in Crl. Misc. No. 6266-M of 1994
F
          Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.

          K.C. Bajaj for the Respondent.

          The following Order ·of the Court was delivered :
G
          Leave granted.

           In a case arising out of FIR No. 735 dated 8.11.1993, relating to the
    alleged dowry death of Smt. Sunita- wife of Anil Kumar, the ieamed ·
    Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak granted anticipatory bail to the parents
H   anr:l the brother of the husband of the deceased Smt. Sunita and directed that
                     DOLAT.RAMv, STATEOFHARYANA·                            71

 they be released on ba-il' on their furnishing bail bonds in. the sum of Rs. A
 l 0,000 each with one surety each of the like amount in the event of their
 arrest to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. No bail has however been
 gran~ed to the husband - Anil Kumar. The State ofHaryana filed a·pe~ition
 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking cancellation of the
 anticipat~ry bail, granted· to the. appellants by the Additi~nal Sessions
 Judge, Rohtak on November 12, 1993.' The learned Single Judge of the B
 High Court by its order dated 8.9.1994, cancelled the bail observing;
                                         ..
               "Dowry de~th is a serious matter and cannot be taken so
               lightly. No positive finding has be.en recorded by the Addi.
               Sessions Judge in. his. order to the effect that the respondents
               and th~ deceased were Iiv'ing separately. No prima-fai:i~ case C
               is made out which '?ould justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
               To my view of thinking, concession of anticipatory bail
               granted by the Addi. Sessioris Judge, was totally uncalled for ..
               The order dated November 12, 1993 is, there(.ore; setaside
               and the respondents are directed to be taken into ~ustody."
                                                                                 D
      The appellants ate aggrieved of the cancellation of the anticipatory
 bail~ granted to them. Hence this appeal.

       It appears to us that whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
  not justified in observing in the last paragraph of his order while granting'
  antfoipatory bail "it appears that possibly these accused~applicants have E
  been roped in falsely", at that initial stage, when·pos!>ibly the investigation
  was not even completed let alone, any evidence had been led at·the trial, the ·
  High Court also fell in error in cancell~g the anticipatory bail granted to
· the appellants for the reasons, which have been extracted by us above .. The
  learned Ad~itional Sessions Judge had ·noticed .t~at even according to the . F ·
  statement m the FIR, the. appellants were hvmg separate.ly from the .
  deceased· and her husband and that the factum of separate residence was · ·
  also supported by the ration card. These considerations were relevant
  c.onsiderations for dealing with an application for grant of anticipatozy bail. ..

       Rejection of bailm   a non-bailable case at the· initial stage and the G
· cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with .on
  different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circurnstances arenece.ssary
  for an· order cjirecting the cancellation· of .the bail, already granted.
  G~neraily speaking, the grounds for · cancellation of· bail, ·broadly
  (illustrative and not exhaustive} are : interference or attempt to. interfere
  with the due cours~ of administration of justice .or evasion or attempt to · H
    72                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A   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 ,i.
    considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
B   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, it appears,
    were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail,
    already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction
    of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first
    instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.
c
          We are, therefore, satisfied that the cancellation of anticipatory bail
    granted to the appellants, for the reasons given by the High Court, was not
    justified. Nothing has been brought to our notice either from which any
    inference may possibly be drawn that the appellants have in any manner,
    whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during the intervening period.
D
        We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the
    High Court and restore that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
    Rohtak dated 12th November, 1993.

    A.G.                                                        Appeal allowed.