Supreme Court of India
MOHAN SINGH versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH on 20 February 1978
l
A
MOHAN SINGH
v.
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
February 20, 1978
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JASWANT SINGH AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J
B
Criminal Procedure Code. (Act 11 of 1974), 1973 Sections 437, 439-Special powers o; Iligh Court under S. 439(2) in cancelling bail.
~fhe bail granted by the Sessions to the appellant, who was charged for an -0ffence unJer section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was cancelled by the lligh Court on the ground that hf:j moved both the Sessions and tbe High Court simuitaneousJy, without disclosing it to the Sessions Court.
C
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court HELD : Refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of 'bail. 1bc real basis of bail law is as laid down by the Supreme Court in [19781 2 SCR 358 [127 G·H, 128A] Gr;,rcharan Singh & Ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration), [1978] 2 D S.C.R. 358 reiterated. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 118 ·Of J 978.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 11th January, 1978 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. E No. 129-M of 1978).
S. K. Mehta for the Appellant.
l\J. M. Punchhi and P. C. Bhartari for the Respondent.
p
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
'The offence alleged in this case against the appellant is one under Section 5 (2) of the Preven.tion of Corruption Act. Ba'! was granted by the SGssions Judge after hearing counsel ou both sides but it was cancelled by the High Court mainly for the reason that the appellant had simultaneously moved for bail in the Sessions as well as iu the High Court without disclosing to the Sessions Court that he had moved for bail in the High Court. This naturally made the High Court feel that the party was not straight-forward in his dealings with the Court. The consequence was that the bail already granted was reversed.
G
Counsel for the State pressed before us tliat the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima-facie (according tieJ the results of the in-vestigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. This H
A Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan Singh & ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration)('). We do not think there is as yet any allegation against the appellant of interference with the course of justice or other well-established grounds for refusal of bail. In this view, we direct that the appellant be allowed to continue on bail until' further orders to the contrary passed by the Sessions Court if good grounds are made out to its satisfaction.
B
S.R.
Appeal allowed.