The provisions for cancellation of bail are contained in Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Under sub-section (5) of Section 437 of Cr. P.C any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or (2) of that section, may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody
Similarly Section 439 empowers High Court or a Court of Session to release on bail any person accused of an offence and who is in custody. Sub-section (2) of the Section 439 provides that a High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of Cr. P.C. be arrested and commit him to custody.
Therefore, these two sections confer power on Courts for grant of bail and powers have also been conferred for cancellation of bail in appropriate and fit cases.
In V. Chinna Reddy v. N. Vidyasagar Reddy, 1982 Cri LJ 2183 it was observed that S. 437(5) Cr. P.C. empowers the very Magistrate who has released the person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of S. 437 Cr. P.C. to direct that such person be arrested and committed to custody. Thus, this provision pertains to a Court of Magistrate but not a High Court or a Court of Session
Under sub-section (5) of Section 437 of Cr. P.C a person who was released on bail under sub-section (1) or (2) of that section may be rearrested if the Court considers it necessary to do. As under S. 167(2) a person who has been released on the ground that he had been in custody for a period of over sixty days is deemed to be released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII, his release should be considered as one under S. 437 (1) or (2). Section 437(5) empowers the court to direct that the person so released may be arrested if it considers it necessary to do so. The power of the court to cancel bail if it considers it necessary is preserved in cases where a person has been released on bail under S. 437 (1) or (2) and these provisions are applicable to a person who has been released under S. 167 (2)
Object Underlying Cancellation of Bail :-
In Karan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cri LJ 251 it was observed that the object of Section 437(5), Cr. P.C. is not punitive but to protect the interest of justice and to prevent it from being tampered with in any manner by the accused. The bail granted to an accused can be cancelled if the accused, after his release on bail, tried to tamper with the evidence or hampers the trial or investigation, committing an act of violence or commits the same offence again. The power vested with the Court for cancellation of the bail have to be exercised with care and circumspection.
The object of sub-section (5) of S. 437 of Cr. P.C. is to enable the Court, on sufficient materials being placed before it, to cancel the bail granted or to direct that such person be arrested and committed to custody. This sub-section contemplates a situation where a person enlarged on bail has misused the freedom granted or has disobeyed the conditions imposed or has imperiled the smooth course of investigation of has done such acts as in the opinion of the Court are sufficient to cancel the bail already given.
In Surnendra Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004 Cri LJ 988 it was observed that the legislature while incorporating the provisions for cancellation of bail was aware that there may be cases in which the accused enlarged on bail may misuse his position after being enlarged on bail, in order to take care of that situation provisions have been incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail, so that the accused should always remain under control and always remain careful that if he will breach any of the conditions of bail imposed upon him while granting bail his bail can be cancelled and he will be put in custody again. At the same time a heavy duty has been cast on the Court that while deciding the cases of cancellation of bail the Court should satisfy its judicial conscience and in order to satisfy the judicial conscience the Court must see whether convincing grounds exits for the cancellation of bail, if these grounds exists only then and then the Court should exercise this power vested in it.
Grounds for Cancellation of Bail :-
In Nityanand Rai vs State Of Bihar & Anr 2005 it was observed that Consideration of an application for grant of bail stands on a different footing than one for cancellation of bail. Grounds for cancellation of bail should be those which arose after the grant of bail and should be referable to the conduct of the accused while on bail, such is not the case made out in application for cancellation of bail.
In Mubarik Khan vs Nasir Khan on 11 November, 1997 It was observed that Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice or abuse 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 justify ing the cancellation of bail. However, bail once grained 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.
Bail may also be cancelled on the following grounds ( illustrative and not exhaustive) -
1.When the person on bail is found directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer
2. When the person on bail commits similar offence or
any heinous offence during the period of bail.
3. When the person on bail creates serious law and
order problems in the society and he had become a hazard on the peaceful living
of the people.
4. When the High Court found that there was a wrong
exercise of judicial discretion to grant the accused bail.
5. When the circumstances were proved that the accused
has misused the liberty granted to him, it is sufficient ground to cancel bail.
6. If the life of the accused person on bails itself
be in danger.
In Ripudaman Singh v. State of
Haryana,171 the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while considering the
question as to which material could be accepted for the cancellation of
bail by the Session Judge, observed that neither police report made to the
District Attorney, nor the application field by the District Attorney,
Unsupported by any affidavit, was evidence in the case and the facts
stated therein ocould not be accepted as correct
In Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra, (2004)2 SCC it was observed that mere assertion
of an alleged threat to witnesses should not be utilized as a ground for
cancellation of bail, routinely. Otherwise, there is ample scope for
making such allegation to nullify the bail granted. The Court before which
such allegations are made should in each case carefully weigh the
acceptability of the allegations and pass orders as circumstances warrant
in law. Such matters should be dealt with expeditiously so that actual
interference with the ordinary and normal course of justice is nipped in
the bud and an irretrievable stage is not reached
In Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 2013 SC 296
It was observed that the Court is conscious that cancellation of bail is a serious
matter. Bail once granted can be cancelled only when there exist very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances. It is settled law that
parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different.
However, if the Trial Court while granting bail acts on irrelevant
materials, bail can be cancelled.
A bail cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of allegations that the accused persons are misusing the privilege of bail when there is no other convincing material on the record for the Court to come to that conclusion
Instances Where Bail Was Cancelled:-
1. In Puran vs. Rambilas & Anr. the Supreme Court held that where in a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of the nature of causing dowry death ignoring material and evidence on record and that too without giving any reasons, bail can be cancelled. Such an order would be against the principles of law.
2. In Ohana Kuttan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala.2004 CrLJ 3453 (3457) in case against the accused under sections 302/307/376, 273, 201, 120B for supplying spirit used in the manufacture of illicit arrack, causing the death of seven persons and loss of eye-sight of seven others, bail was refused.
3. In Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. 2003 All LJ 1634: (2003)CrLJ 3429 (3430) (All) accused MLA facing prosecution for screening under sections 302, 307, 134, 147, 148, 149 IPC involved in 32 cases including murder and rape, the bail refused.
4.In Bhagirathi Adiwasi Vs. State, 2004 ACC 197 (All) the accused charged for offences under sections 498A, 306, 201, alleged to have physically tortured the victim who committed suicide on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, was refused to bail.
5. In Satya Narayan Pillai vs. State of Chattisgarh,(2003) 2 All In Case 681: 2003 CrLJ 2899 (2900) Chatt. where accused was charged under section 376 IPC injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix the accused had demanded money from the husband of the prosecutrix for screening the offender in a murder case, bail was refused.
Thus power to cancel bail and take back an accused in custody who has been enlarged on bail, though has to the exercised with care and circumspection, yet the power, though extraordinary one, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases. Refusal to exercise the wholesome power in cases, few though they may be, will reduce it to a dead letter and will suffer the Courts to be silent spectators to the subversion of the judicial process
References :-
1.https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7790/11/11_chapter%25205.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjFhoqov97XAhUKqY8KHSzyA58QFghnMAo&usg=AOvVaw3OLGKMwYST6_CZrUoOUdCV
2.http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/9-important-grounds-under-which-a-bail-may-be-cancelled/119362
3.R.V.Kelkar,Lectures on Criminal Procedure, sixth edition
4.Ratanlal & Dhirajlal Criminal Procedure Code
