Cancellation Of Bail Cannot Be Limited To The Occurrence Of Supervening Circumstances: SC
Topic: Cancellation of Bail Cannot Be Limited to Supervening Circumstances – Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court has clarified that cancellation of bail is not restricted only to cases where "supervening circumstances" (events occurring after bail is granted) exist.
Traditionally, courts used to say that once bail is granted, it can be cancelled only if:
The accused misuses the liberty of bail,
Tries to tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or abscond,
Or if any supervening circumstance arises after bail was granted.
But the Supreme Court in this ruling explained that even if there are no new developments after grant of bail, cancellation is possible if the original order granting bail itself was legally flawed, perverse, or passed without proper application of mind.
Reasoning by the Supreme Court
Granting bail is a judicial function that must balance personal liberty under Article 21 with the interests of justice and fair trial.
If the bail order is arbitrary, ignores material facts, or overlooks the gravity of offence, higher courts can step in to cancel the bail.
Thus, cancellation is not confined to post-bail misconduct but also includes correction of an erroneous bail order.
Key Case Laws
Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338
SC held that if bail has been granted ignoring relevant materials, or in an arbitrary/capricious manner, it is a fit case for cancellation.
Cancellation can be ordered not just for misconduct of accused but also for correcting a wrong order.
State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21
Court held that while granting bail, the court must consider nature of accusation, severity of punishment, possibility of tampering with evidence, and likelihood of fleeing from justice. If these are ignored, the bail can be cancelled.
Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349
Laid down that supervening circumstances like misuse of bail liberty justify cancellation, but also noted that arbitrary orders can be interfered with.
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508
Bail granted to a history-sheeter accused of murder was cancelled as the High Court had not considered his criminal antecedents and seriousness of offence.
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230
SC observed that grant of bail without considering vital factors is itself a ground for cancellation, even if there are no new supervening circumstances.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has clarified that cancellation of bail is not limited to fresh wrongdoings after bail.
If the original bail order is:
perverse,
illegal,
passed without due consideration of relevant factors,
then it can be cancelled.
So, the principle is: Personal liberty is important, but courts cannot allow bail orders that are unjust, arbitrary, or passed ignoring settled legal principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments