Sessions Court Can Cancel Pre-Arrest Bail Granted By HC On Account Of Subsequent Events But Can't Adjudicate Upon Its Veracity: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Sessions Court can cancel anticipatory bail granted by High Court only on account of subsequent event but cannot adjudicate upon "veracity of the High Court order".

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "A Sessions Court has power to cancel an anticipatory bail granted by High Court or earlier granted by it. However, the Sessions Court can cancel anticipatory bail granted by High Court only where the accused has violated any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting such bail) or on account of such accused having misused liberty granted to him by trying to influence witness(s) or having tried to delay trial by absenting himself or having committed another offence(s) while on bail and other factors of akin nature."

In other words, a Sessions Court can cancel anticipatory bail granted to an accused by High Court only on account of such likes supervening/subsequent events but cannot adjudicate upon veracity of the High Court order, the Court added.

The High Court also summarised the following principles:

(i) A High Court has power to cancel regular bail granted by itself or by a Sessions Court or by a Magistrate's Court.

(ii) A Sessions Court has a power to cancel regular bail granted by High Court or by itself or by a Magistrate's Court. However, the Sessions Court can cancel regular bail granted by High Court only where the accused has violated any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting bail) or on account of such accused having misused liberty granted to him by trying to influence witness(s) or having tried to delay trial by absenting himself or having committed another offence(s) while on bail and other factors of akin nature.

(iii) A Magistrate does have the power to cancel a regular bail granted by him in terms of Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. 1973. However, a Magistrate does not have the power to cancel regular bail granted by the High Court or Sessions Court except in a situation wherein the accused has violated any condition(s) imposed upon him when granted such bail by the High Court or the Sessions Court.

(iv) In case cancellation of a regular bail granted by the Sessions Court is sought for; such plea ought to be ordinarily filed before the Sessions Court itself. However, since there is concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court as also Sessions Court in terms of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973, the filing of such a plea straight away before the High Court is not ipso facto barred.

(v) The factors for consideration in a plea for cancellation of a regular bail are whether the accused has misused liberty granted to him by trying to influence witness(s) or has tried to delay trial or has committed another offence(s) while on bail, whether the accused has flouted the cancellation of bail, whether bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud or concealing relevant material and similar factors of akin nature.

(vi) Where such plea raises ground(s) that bail has been granted on account of misrepresentation of facts or a fraud having been played on Court which has granted bail or concealment of material/relevant facts; it would be expedient that such plea be filed, in the first instance itself, before the Court which had granted bail in question.

With respect to the plea seeking“setting-aside of a bail order”, it said  that the plea "has to be essentially filed in the Court, superior to the one which has granted bail."

"In case setting-aside of a bail order granted by the Magistrate's Court is sought for, such plea ought to be ordinarily filed before the Sessions Court. However, since there is concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court as also Sessions Court in terms of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973, the filing of such a plea straight away before the High Court is not ipso facto barred,” the Court said.

At the same time, it would be expedient that such a plea (filed straight away before the High Court) must show cogent reason for not approaching the Sessions Court in the first instance, the judge added.

These observations came in response to the petition filed by victim's father challenging the pre-arrest bail in a case pertaining to cruelty, wherein a man was booked under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused ought not to have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court since there were serious allegations.

It was also argued that the complete recovery of dowry articles/Istridhan has not been made and hence the Sessions Court ought not to have granted the anticipatory bail to him.

After hearing the submissions the Court noted that, "it is trite law that non-recovery of dowry articles/Istridhan cannot, by itself, be a ground for declining a plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the husband or his relatives."

The Court opined that there is not any good ground to hold that the Sessions Court, while passing the impugned order, has overstepped its jurisdiction or has not exercised the same in right perspective.

In light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Advocate Sitanshu Sharma for the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Priyanka Sadar,  Haryana.

Advocate RS Athwal for the accused.

Title: XXXX v. XXX

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 168