Refusal To Cancel Bail

 

 

 

THROUGH the Order passed on July 31, 2025, in the case –State of Maharashtra v. Madurai alias Madra Devendra Mariappan (44), at the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court at Mumbai, Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Shyam C Chandak have rejected the State Government’s criminal application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondent has violated the bail conditions.

 

The facts of the case, in a nutshell are that are that the sole respondent /Original Accused No.1, along with three other co-accused was prosecuted for committing the murder of one Mari Raman Devendra. On conclusion of trial, the respondent was convicted under section 302 of IPC by the judgement and order of February 18, 2019 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, in the case registered with the Police Station Juhu. Assailing the impugned Judgement and order the respondent has filed criminal appeal which is pending disposal. On an interlocutory application filed seeking bail, a HC division bench (BP Dharmadhikari and Swapna Joshi JJ.) had passed order on August 7, 2019 suspending the jail Sentence of the respondent thus directing his release on bail. According to the State, the respondent has violated the bail conditions by threatening one Dinesh Kannaswami Devendra as a result of which offence was registered against him at Juhu Police Station under sections 324, 504, 506(2), 34 of the IPC. According to the State, after his release on bail, on August 7, 2019, as many as three offences have been registered against the respondent. It has been, therefore, contended that the respondent is a habitual offender, who has acted in violation of the bail conditions set out by this Court. He has no respect for law.

 

AS such, if the respondent is allowed to remain on bail, there is every likelihood that he may threaten witnesses again and tamper with the evidence. Therefore, bail to him is liable to be cancelled. In order to substantiate this plea, the appellant-State has invited the attention of this Court to said three offences registered against the respondent arising from the incidents, which took place subsequent to the issuance of the order of August 7, 2019. The respondent has filed counter affidavit resisting the prayer made in the application contending that he has not violated the bail conditions. However, with a view to deprive him of his personal liberty, false and frivolous complaints have been lodged against the respondent. It is also the contention of the respondent that the complaints referred to by the State are the outcome of business and political rivalry between the respondent and the complainants. It must be borne in mind that every criminal case has its peculiar scenario and projection.

 

The truth can be established only in a full length trial. However, for the purpose of an application for an application for cancellation of bail, the Court is only required to form a prima facie opinion as regards the conduct of the respondent. From a careful analysis of the material on record, the HC is of the view that those are insufficient to hold that there has been any deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent to either direct or indirect attempt to contract or pressurise either the complainant in this case or any of the witnesses. There is also nothing on record to show that the respondent had indulged in commission of offence such as the one involved in criminal appeal No. 467 of 2019. Moreover, from the statements made in his Counter Affidavit, It appears that the respondent has all along remained before the Court below, as and when required, thus adhering to first condition of bail.

 

There is no allegation of violation of other bail conditions. In this case, the order of August 7, 2019 granting bail to the applicant was passed in an interim application arising out of a criminal appeal filed by him, which is pending before the HC. Although, the applicant has been already convicted by the trial court, yet, taking note of facts of the case and the evidence available on record, the bail was granted to the applicant by the HC. Ordinarily, after conclusion of trial, the question of tampering with evidence and/or pressurising witnesses would not arise. However, if it transpires from the material on record that by taking advantage of the bail order, the applicant is making deliberate attempt to influence the outcome of the pending appeal by threatening the complainant, then such conduct of the applicant can be relevant consideration for cancelling the bail granted to him.

 

However, upon review of the material on record, no such direct connection as regards the alleged activity of the applicant and threat to the complainant and/or witnesses qua the pending appeal could be detected. Since the HC has already taken note of the past conduct of the applicant, the evidence on record as well as the circumstances of the case, while granting him bail, the level of scrutiny of the allegations made by the State for cancellation of bail in this application ought to be of higher standard as compared to made for cancellation of bail during trial. In other words, the parameters applicable for considering the grounds taken in the application for cancellation of bail granted during the trial and during the pendency of a criminal appeal before the HC, in the Court’s view, stand on different footings and, therefore, and would have to be dealt with accordingly by the Court. The principle “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” is embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Although, such a right of accused/convict is not absolute, yet, the essence of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 would be of paramount consideration. While dealing with an application for cancellation of bail, the courts must, therefore, endeavour to strike a balance between the individual liberty and the social interest and exercise jurisdiction with great care and circumspection bearing in mind the settled legal principles governing the issue. The HC is very clear in its mind that bail once granted ought not to be cancelled in the absence of strong, cogent and overwhelming ground. Having regard to facts of this case, the HC is of the opinion that these factors are not present herein, justifying cancellation of bail granted on August 7, 2019. In result, the High Court has rejected the application for cancelling the bail.