Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 607 (AP)

Shanmukha Swamy v. State Of A. P.

2001-06-19

T.CH.SURYA RAO

body2001
ORDER T. Ch. Surya Rao, J. - The petitioner, herein assails the order dated 22-5-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Crl. M.P. No. 467 of 2001 in Crime No.3 of 2001. 2. The petitioner is the accused in the said crime registered on a complaint given by his wife alleging various offences. When the petitioner sought for anticipatory bail, he was directed to surrender before the Court and seek bail. Pursuant to the said direction, he surrendered himself before the Court and the Court consequently granted bail. 3. Thereafter, an application for cancellation of bail was filed in Crl. M.P. No. 467 of 2001 alleging inter alia, that the petitioner has been indulging in same attitude of harassing his wife and has been threatening her with dire consequences. Notice has been issued to the petitioner in the said petition. The bail order granted earlier to him was cancelled under the impugned order since the petitioner failed to file his counter. 4. Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. The power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extraordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases, when, by a preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses, vide Delhi Administration v. Saryay Gandhi1. 5. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly 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. However, these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. 5. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly 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. However, these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in heinous crime of the nature like bride burning and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected, vide Puran v. Rambilas2. 6. The above indicia succinctly laid down by the Apex Court are to be borne in mind before making an attempt to consider an application for cancellation of bail and eventually to adjudicate the same. The Court below has been swayed away by one fact of not filing the counter by the petitioner. It may suggest that the petitioner is not willing to controvert the averments made in the petition filed seeking cancellation of bail. But, if those averments are germane for consideration, in an application filed for cancellation of bail, the circumstance that the respondent accused has not filed any counter controverting crucial averments made in the petition the fact that no counter has been filed gains significance, In the instant case, the only allegation worth mentioning that has been made while seeking cancellation of bail is that the petitioner has been threatening his wife with dire consequences. If the petitioner threatened his wife with dire consequences, it becomes altogether a different offence. It is now represented that the counter could not be filed as the counter of the petitioner in the Court below could not be present on that day. None of the indicia excerpted above is present in the petition. 7. Having due regard to the above facts. I am of the considered view that the order impugned is quite unsustainable under law. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. Petition allowed. 1. AIR 1978 SC 961 . 2. 2000 AIR SCW 1935.