Case Law Details
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Sanjay Sharma (Madhya Pradesh HC)
HC held that for cancelling the bail once granted the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or at the stage of post-grant of bail the conduct of accused demonstrate that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. The Supreme Court has summarized certain circumstances under which the bail can be cancelled. Paragraph No.24 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loath to interfere with an order passed by the Court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on irrelevant material, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the Appellate Court. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled are enumerated below:-
a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;
b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;
g) If he is likely to flee from the country:
h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;
i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.
j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.
In view of the above, no case is made out for cancellation of the bail. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The present application is filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of bail granted to non-applicant / accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. vide M.Cr.C. No.44918/2020, order dated 04.01.2021. This non-applicant is facing trial under Section 49A(1) (three counts) r/w Section 42 (12 counts) and (2-3 counts) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915, Section 304 r/w Section 120-B (3 counts) of IPC, Section 328 r/w Section 120-B (3 counts) of IPC pending before VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. The charges have been framed on 13.11.2021, as per the prosecution story the non-applicant/ accused at the relevant point of time was working as a manager in the Imperial Commercial Industries, Udyogpuri, Maksi Road of which co-accused Aijaz Husain is the proprietor. The police conducted a search of the premises and ceased 50 litres of Isopropyl alcohol from the factory and arrested the non-applicant.
The above search was conducted after the death of 16 innocent persons due to consumption of spurious liquor and the said spurious liquor was prepared and sold by other accused by purchasing 100-litre spirit from Imperial Chemicals. Co-accused Jitendra Mukati collected two cans of 50-50 liters of isopropyl alcohol and sold it to co-accused Sheikh Farooq for Rs.6,500/-, During the investigation 16 accused were implicated and all are facing the trial.
The non-applicant filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before this court on two grounds firstly that 100-litre isopropyl alcohol was sold to Deepmala vide invoice dated 17.10.2020 whereas the incident took place on 14.10.2020, secondly the applicant did not know that the purchaser of the isopropyl chemical would be used for the preparation of spurious liquor.
Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State admitted that except invoice dated 17.10.2020, the police did not collect any other incriminating material against the non-applicant and he was working as a Manager and had no knowledge about the use of the chemical by the purchaser. After considering the above submissions and material available on the case diary vide order dated 04.01.2021 this Court granted bail to the non-applicant. Thereafter Learned Trail Judge also granted bail to co-accused Aijaz Husain the proprietor.
Now the State Government has filed this application seeking cancellation of the bail on the ground that Imperial Chemical did not have a license to store and sell the spirit. The forged invoice dated 17.10.2020 was prepared in its computer system to save from this prosecution whereas there was no sale of any type of chemical from the factory of the non-applicant as such order was received from Deepmala.
The notice was issued to the non-applicant to file a reply as to why the bail be not cancelled on aforesaid two grounds. The non-applicant has filed the reply by submitting that Rahul a worker in Imperial Chemicals has been examined in the Court as PW/1 and he has not stated that he prepared the invoice dated 17.10.2020 on the instruction of this non-applicant, he has further stated that since the amount of invoice was less than Rs.50,000/- therefore, mentioning the GST number was not required and he was not aware of the GST number of Deepmala. It is further submitted that after the grant of bail, the FSL report came and in the dead bodies of 12 persons, only the chemical of ethyl and methyl alcohol were found whereas, from the factory of the non-applicant isopropyl, the chemical was seized, therefore, in view of the subsequent development Shri Husain learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant submits that the bail is not liable to be cancelled. In support of his contention learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Basit Alias Raju and others v/s Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 decided on 15.09.2014 in which the Apex Court has held that even though the cancellation of bail rides on the satisfaction and discretion of the Court under Section 439(2) of the Code, it does not vest the power of review in the Court which granted bail. Even in the light of facts of misrepresentation by the petitioner accused during the grant of bail, the High Court could not have entertained the respondent/informant’s prayer by setting in the review of its judgment by entertaining a miscellaneous petition.
Appreciation and conclusion
When this M.Cr.C. seeking cancellation of bail of non-applicant was filed on 05.08.2021, the statements of Rahul PW/2 were not recorded in the Court, He entered the witness box on 27.01.2022 and specifically denied the fact of preparation of invoice dated 17.10.2020 on the instruction of this non-applicant. There is no charge for the preparation of forgery of the Invoice dated 17.10.2020. As per the FSL report, the seized chemical i.e. isopropyl alcohol was not found in the dead body/viscera.
Recently, the Apex Court in the case of MS. P. v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh and another (Criminal Appeal No.740 of 2022) decided on 05.05.2022 has held that for cancelling the bail once granted the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or at the stage of post-grant of bail the conduct of accused demonstrate that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. The Supreme Court has summarized certain circumstances under which the bail can be cancelled. Paragraph No.24 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loath to interfere with an order passed by the Court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on irrelevant material, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the Appellate Court. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled are enumerated below:-
a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;
b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;
g) If he is likely to flee from the country:
h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;
i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.
j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.
In view of the above, no case is made out for cancellation of the bail. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
