Mohan Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh
- SCC(1978) 2 SCC 366
- Neutral1978 INSC 38
- AIRAIR 1978 SC 1095
- SCR[1978] 3 SCR 127
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The refusal of bail to an accused person is not an indirect mode of punishing them before conviction; the true rationale of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused at trial and to prevent interference with the course of justice, not to serve as a punishment for the gravity of the offence alleged. The High Court's cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court, based solely on the appellant's failure to disclose that simultaneous applications for bail had been made in both courts, was not justified in the absence of any allegation that the appellant had interfered with the course of justice or other well-established grounds for refusal of bail.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ACT: Criminal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974), 1973 Sections 437, 439--Special powers of High Court under S. 439(2) in cancelling bail.
HEADNOTE: The bail granted by the Sessions to the appellant, who was charged for an offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was cancelled by the High Court on the ground that he moved both the Sessions and the High Court simultaneously, without disclosing it to the Sessions Court. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court HELD : Refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. The real basis of bail law is as laid down by the Supreme Court in [1978] 2 SCR 358 [127 G-H, 128A] Gurcharan Singh & Ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 358 reiterated.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1978.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 11th January, 1978 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 129-M of 1978).
S. K. Alehta for the Appellant.
M. M. Punchhi and P. C. Bhartari for the Respondent.
ORDER The offence alleged in this case against the appellant is one under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Bail was granted by the Sessions Judge after hearing counsel on both sides but it was cancelled by the High Court mainly for the reason that the appellant had simultaneously moved for bail in the Sessions as well as in the High Court without disclosing to the Sessions Court that he had moved for bail in the High Court. This naturally made the High Court feel that the party was not straight-forward in his dealings, with the Court. The consequence was that the bail already granted was reversed.
Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima-facie (according to the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale, of bail. This 128 Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan Singh & ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1). We do not think there is as yet any allegation against the appellant of interference with the course of justice or other well-established grounds for refusal of bail. In this view, we direct that the appellant be allowed to continue on bail until further orders to the contrary passed by the Sessions Court if good grounds are made out to its satisfaction.
S.R. Appeal allowed.
(1) (1978) 2 S.C R. 358.
129
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free