Hazari Lal Das vs State Of West Bengal & Anr

3. The appellant made an application for

anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 before the Sessions Judge, Alipore,

District 24 Parganas (South).

4. Learned Sessions Judge (I/C) after hearing

the counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor

enlarged the appellant on anticipatory bail vide Order

2 dated July 3, 2008. It was ordered that in the event of

arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail

of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of Rs.2,500/- each; one of

such surety shall be local. The Sessions Judge (I/C)

also put a condition that the appellant shall attend the

police station once in a week for eight weeks. He also

imposed usual conditions as laid down in Section 438

(2) Cr.P.C.

5. The complainant - Jayant Naskar approached

the High Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted

by the Sessions Judge (I/C) to the appellant. By the

impugned order dated September 18, 2008, the High

Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the

Sessions Judge (I/C).

6. On December 12, 2008 this Court while

issuing notice stayed the operation of the impugned

order. The order of Sessions Judge (I/C) granting

anticipatory bail, thus, has remained operative.

7. We heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the order of the High Court.

3

8. Although the High Court did notice in the

impugned order that the considerations which should be

in the mind of the court while considering the prayer for

grant of bail are not the same for the purpose of

cancellation of bail, yet we find that these considerations

were not kept in mind and the order of the Sessions

Judge granting anticipatory bail was set aside.

9. In Dolat Ram And Ors. vs. State of Haryana,

(1995) 1 SCC 349, this Court held:

"4. 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 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, 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

4 rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."

10. There is nothing on record that there has

been interference or attempt to interfere with the due

course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also

does not appear from the record that concession granted

to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening

circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying

cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion

exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the

anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the High

Court in the absence of cogent and convincing

circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned

order cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, appeal must succeed and is

allowed. The impugned order dated September 18, 2008

is set aside. The appellant shall attend Gosaba Police

Station once in a week as directed by Sessions Judge

until completion of investigation. He is also directed to

5 fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer and produce

the entire record available with him.

..........................J (Tarun Chatterjee)

..........................J (R.M. Lodha)

New Delhi, September 8, 2009

6