Court Says Cancellation of Bail Stands on Different Footing Than Rejection of Bail; Mere Gravity of Allegations Not Enough
Srinagar, September 4: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a plea filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused facing prosecution in a rape case, observing that liberty once granted by a competent court cannot be interfered with lightly.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while hearing the plea, underscored the distinction between an application seeking bail at the initial stage and a challenge seeking cancellation of bail that has already been granted.
The Court observed that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail at the first instance. Once an accused has been granted liberty by a competent court after consideration of the relevant material, such an order cannot ordinarily be disturbed unless there are legally sustainable grounds for doing so.
The accused is facing prosecution for offences under Sections 376, 354-C, 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The case arises from an alleged incident dated August 16, 2021.
Gravity of Allegations Not the Sole Ground for Bail Cancellation
The High Court acknowledged that the seriousness and gravity of the allegations are undoubtedly relevant factors while considering bail-related matters. However, the Court made it clear that the gravity of the alleged offences alone cannot be treated as sufficient ground for cancelling an existing bail order.
The Court explained that interference with a bail order may become justified where the order granting bail is shown to suffer from perversity, illegality or non-application of mind.
Cancellation may also be warranted if subsequent circumstances demonstrate that the accused has misused the liberty granted by the court.
Such circumstances could include intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, interference with the administration of justice, obstruction of the trial or evasion of the process of law.
Alleged Threats to Witnesses Not Supported by Adequate Material
The prosecution had alleged that, after being released on bail, the accused threatened prosecution witnesses with the intention of derailing the trial.
However, after examining the material placed before it, the High Court found that the allegation was not supported by sufficient material to justify cancellation of bail.
The Court particularly noted that there was no material showing that a subsequent complaint or application had been filed before the Trial Court alleging that the accused had intimidated witnesses or interfered with the recording of evidence.
There was also no report from the Trial Court indicating that the accused had obstructed or interfered with the judicial proceedings.
Victim Had Already Testified and Faced Cross-Examination
Another factor considered by the High Court was the progress of the trial.
The Court noted that the victim had already entered the witness box, recorded her statement and undergone cross-examination.
During the cross-examination of the victim and other prosecution witnesses, certain contradictions and discrepancies had also emerged.
However, Justice Parihar clarified that the High Court was not undertaking a detailed appreciation of the evidence or expressing any final opinion regarding the merits of the prosecution case while examining the challenge to the bail order.
No Perversity or Patent Illegality Found
After considering the circumstances, the High Court concluded that there was no perversity or patent illegality in the Trial Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused.
The Court also found no subsequent circumstance of such nature that would warrant unsettling the discretion exercised by the Trial Court, particularly after a considerable passage of time.
The High Court reiterated that once a competent court has exercised its judicial discretion and granted bail after considering the relevant circumstances, that liberty cannot be disturbed merely because the allegations are serious.
UT’s Plea Dismissed
Finding no legally sustainable ground for interference with the existing bail order, the High Court dismissed the plea filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir seeking cancellation of bail.
The ruling reinforces the principle that cancellation of bail requires stronger and distinct grounds than those considered while deciding an initial bail application, particularly where there is no convincing material demonstrating misuse of the liberty granted by the court.(KNC)
