Supreme Court Remits Bail Challenge to High Court for Fresh Consideration — Distinction Between Cancellation of Bail and Challenge to Arbitrary Exercise of Discretion Clarified. The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the appellant's application as one for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC instead of a challenge to the arbitrary exercise of discretion in granting bail under Section 439 CrPC, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad, filed criminal appeals against orders of the Gujarat High Court that declined to interfere with the trial court's grant of bail to respondents No.2 and 3 (accused No.1 and 2) and relegated the appellant to the Sessions Court on the alleged breach of bail conditions. The dispute arose from an incident on 10.01.2019 where the respondents, along with others, allegedly attacked the complainant's brother Ajitbhai with swords and sticks, causing severe injuries including the loss of use of his right thumb and immobilization of four fingers of his left hand. An FIR was registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506(2) and 114 IPC. The respondents were arrested on 16.01.2019 and granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge on 06.02.2019, who noted that the injured had been discharged, weapons recovered, and witnesses' statements recorded, and that the accused were young with no criminal antecedents. The appellant challenged this bail order before the High Court, which treated the application as one for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC and, noting that the appellant had restricted arguments to breach of bail conditions, relegated him to the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant's application actually challenged the arbitrary exercise of discretion in granting bail, not merely cancellation based on supervening circumstances. The Court clarified the distinction between cancellation of bail (requiring supervening circumstances like tampering of evidence) and a challenge to the grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion (where the court examines whether relevant factors were ignored). Since the High Court proceeded on the wrong footing, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing it to treat the application as a challenge to the grant of bail and decide it in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Cancellation vs. Challenge to Grant - Distinction - The considerations for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC (supervening circumstances like tampering of evidence, threatening witnesses, absconding) are different from those for challenging the grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion (improper or arbitrary exercise ignoring relevant materials). - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 439, 439(2) - The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the appellant's application as one for cancellation of bail when the appellant had challenged the very grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 9-10)

B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Grant of Bail - Relevant Considerations - While granting bail, the court must consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the impact on prosecution witnesses, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and other relevant factors. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - The Supreme Court reiterated the principles from Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of U.P. Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi regarding the judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail. (Paras 7, 9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court erred in treating the appellant's application as one for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC instead of a challenge to the arbitrary exercise of discretion in granting bail under Section 439 CrPC, and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court dated 26.02.2019 and 07.03.2019, and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of Criminal Misc. Application Nos.3528 of 2019 and 3529 of 2019. The High Court was directed to proceed with the matter as if the application challenges the order of grant of bail and decide it in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Distinction between cancellation of bail and challenge to grant of bail on ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion
  • Considerations for grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Supervening circumstances for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (7) 35

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1162-1163 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.3204-3205 of 2019)

2019-07-30

R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna

Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad

State of Gujarat and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against High Court order declining to interfere with trial court's grant of bail to accused and relegating complainant to Sessions Court on alleged breach of bail conditions.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of the High Court orders and cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.2 and 3, or in the alternative, fresh consideration of the challenge to the grant of bail.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the grant of bail to respondents No.2 and 3 on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion by the trial court, ignoring the gravity of the offence and the nature of injuries.

Previous Decisions

Trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Viramgam) granted bail to respondents No.2 and 3 on 06.02.2019. High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge on 26.02.2019 and rejected the speaking to minutes application on 07.03.2019.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in treating the appellant's application as one for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC instead of a challenge to the arbitrary exercise of discretion in granting bail under Section 439 CrPC. Whether the matter should be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the High Court failed to consider that the application challenged the very exercise of discretion in granting bail, not merely cancellation based on supervening circumstances, and that the trial court ignored the gravity of the offence and the serious injuries sustained by the victim. Respondents argued that the appellant had restricted his arguments before the High Court to breach of bail conditions and therefore could not now challenge the grant of bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The considerations for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC (supervening circumstances like tampering of evidence, threatening witnesses, absconding) are different from those for challenging the grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion (improper or arbitrary exercise ignoring relevant materials). When an application challenges the very grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion, the court must examine whether the trial court properly considered relevant factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the impact on witnesses, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence, and not treat it merely as an application for cancellation of bail.

Judgment Excerpts

It is well settled that the consideration applicable for cancellation of bail and consideration for challenging the order of grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion are different. While considering the application for cancellation of bail, the Court ordinarily looks for some supervening circumstances like; tampering of evidence either during investigation or during trial, threatening of witness, the accused is likely to abscond and the trial of the case getting delayed on that count etc. Whereas, in an order challenging the grant of bail on the ground that it has been granted illegally, the consideration is whether there was improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in grant of bail.

Procedural History

On 10.01.2019, FIR was registered. Respondents No.2 and 3 were arrested on 16.01.2019 and remanded to judicial custody on 17.01.2019. On 06.02.2019, the Additional Sessions Judge, Viramgam granted bail to respondents No.2 and 3. On 26.02.2019, the High Court dismissed the appellant's Criminal Misc. Application Nos.3528 and 3529 of 2019, relegating him to the Sessions Court. On 07.03.2019, the High Court dismissed the speaking to minutes application. The appellant then filed SLP before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and heard the appeals.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506(2), 114
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 439, 439(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remits Bail Challenge to High Court for Fresh Consideration — Distinction Between Cancellation of Bail and Challenge to Arbitrary Exercise of Discretion Clarified. The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the appellant's a...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes High Court's Review Order in Service Dispute Due to Lack of Reasoning. Review Jurisdiction Requires Speaking Order Demonstrating Error Apparent on Face of Record Under Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.