Not Correct to Recall Bail Order In Absence Of Allegation By Investigating Agency That Accused Violated Imposed Conditions Or He Was Misusing His Liberty: SC
The Supreme Court restored an order granting bail and observed that since there was not even an allegation by the Investigating Agency that the accused violated any of the conditions which were imposed while granting bail or that he was misusing the liberty granted to him, it was not correct on the part of the High Court to recall its earlier order granting bail.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed challenging the judgment whereby the Single Judge of the High Court recalled its earlier order vide which the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was allowed.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan noticed, “…the learned Single Judge, after considering the material, had prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to grant of bail.”
Advocate Ganesh Khanna represented the Appellants while Advocate Anshul Narayan represented the Respondents.
An FIR, in this case, was lodged in the year 2016 against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant’s application before the Sessions Judge for grant of bail was rejected. When the matter reached the High Court, the Single Judge directed release of the appellant on bail on certain terms and conditions. Vide the second impugned order, an application for modification of the order came to be rejected and the Registrar General of the High Court was directed to enquire into the matter. Upon consideration of the report, the High Court vide third impugned order recalled its earlier order granting bail and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Bench noted that the factor that weighed with the Judge of the High Court was that the appellant had suppressed certain materials with regard to criminal antecedents and therefore was not entitled to the equitable relief.
It was the appellant’s case that he had no intention of suppressing the material from the Court. It was also submitted that in the cases which are treated as criminal antecedents either the appellant has been released on bail or a closure report has been filed.
The Counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the appeal an submitted that the Judge of the High Court had correctly recalled the order granting bail, inasmuch as concealment of material factors is an important factor which disentitles the appellant of any equitable relief.
The Bench, at the outset, made it clear that it did not wish to observe anything about the merits or demerits of certain material as it might adversely affect the trial.
The Bench noticed that the Single Judge, after considering the material, had prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to grant of bail. Subsequently, though an application was filed for modification by the complainant, the same was rejected. While rejecting the prayer for modification, the Judge however suo motu directed that an inquiry is to be conducted and on the basis of the said inquiry the Judge recalled his earlier order granting bail.
“We find that since there was not even an allegation by the Investigating Agency that the appellant has violated any of the conditions which were imposed while granting bail or that he was misusing the liberty granted to him, it was not correct on the part of the learned Single Judge to recall its earlier order granting bail”, it said.
Thus, allowing the appeals, the Bench restored the order granting bail. Ordered accordingly.
Cause Title: Mendar Singh @ Vijay Singh v. State of Bihar [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 969]
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Ganesh Khanna, Gauraw Kumat, AOR Himanshu Bhushan
Respondents: Advocate Anshul Narayan, AOR Prem Prakash