Case Note & Summary
This was a criminal appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court against an order of the Mysore High Court cancelling bail granted to two convicted appellants pending their appeal. The appellants, Pampapathy and Shekarappa, had been convicted by the Sessions Court at Chitradurga for offences under the Indian Penal Code and were released on bail by the High Court under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when their appeals were admitted. The State of Mysore later moved applications alleging misuse of liberty. The prosecution case was that the appellants, along with dismissed workers and union members, conspired to commit murder and other offences to strengthen their associations and weaken rival unions, and on the night of March 19, 1964, they formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, and attacked Heggappa and other workers, causing death and injuries. The Sessions Judge convicted them on December 7, 1964 under Sections 147, 148, 322, 324 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC, but acquitted under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 149. Appeals were filed in the High Court, and bail was granted under Section 426 CrPC. On March 7, 1966, the State filed applications under Sections 498(2) and 561A CrPC for cancellation of bail, supported by an affidavit from the Deputy Superintendent of Police alleging that the appellants were misusing their liberty by committing acts of violence, instigating labour unions, and paralysing mill working. The appellants filed counter-affidavits denying the allegations. The High Court, by order dated March 14, 1966, allowed the applications, cancelled bail, and ordered rearrest. The core question was whether the High Court, after granting bail to a convicted person under Section 426 CrPC pending appeal, could cancel that bail in exercise of its inherent power under Section 561A CrPC, when no express provision existed for cancellation of bail under Section 426. The appellants argued that there was no express power granted to the appellate court to cancel an order of suspension and bail; the legislature had expressly provided for cancellation under Sections 497(5) and 498(2) for accused persons, but omitted any such provision under Section 426 deliberately. They contended that even if the appellants committed further offences, the remedy was a fresh prosecution, not cancellation of bail. The State argued that the appellants were abusing the liberty granted, and the High Court could invoke inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. The Supreme Court examined Sections 426, 496, 497, 498, and 561A. It held that inherent power under Section 561A can be exercised to give effect to orders, prevent abuse of process, or secure ends of justice, but cannot be invoked when a matter is covered by a specific provision or inconsistent with one. Although Sections 497 and 498 contain express provisions for cancellation of bail, there is no express provision for an appellant released under Section 426. The Court found this omission was due to oversight or inadvertence, not deliberate, because accepting the appellant's argument would lead to absurd results—an appellant could commit further violence, intimidate witnesses, or abscond, yet the court could not revoke bail. The Court noted that the allegations prima facie indicated abuse of the process of the court, so Section 561A was attracted. It explained the earlier decision in Lala Jairam Das v. King Emperor. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's order cancelling bail, holding that the High Court had inherent power under Section 561A CrPC to cancel bail granted under Section 426 when misuse or abuse of process was prima facie established. The appellants were to be rearrested and committed to custody.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Power of High Court - Scope and Limits - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 561A - The High Court's inherent power under Section 561A can be exercised to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of process, or secure ends of justice, but cannot be invoked when a specific provision covers the matter or would be inconsistent with such provision - Held that in the absence of an express provision for cancellation of bail under Section 426, the High Court can invoke Section 561A where allegations prima facie indicate abuse of process (Paras 1-7). B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Cancellation of Bail Pending Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 426, 497, 498 - The legislature has expressly provided for cancellation of bail in Sections 497(5) and 498(2) for accused persons, but not for appellants released under Section 426; this omission is due to inadvertence, not deliberate - Held that the High Court is entitled to cancel bail under Section 561A to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, after granting bail to a convicted appellant under Section 426 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 pending appeal, can cancel such bail in exercise of its inherent power under Section 561A of the Code.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed appeals and upheld the High Court's order cancelling bail; held that High Court has inherent power under Section 561A CrPC to cancel bail granted under Section 426 when there is prima facie abuse of process, and directed appellants be rearrested and committed to custody.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- The inherent power of the High Court under Section 561A CrPC can be exercised to give effect to any order under the Code
- prevent abuse of the process of any court
- or otherwise secure the ends of justice
- such power cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by a specific provision or inconsistent with any specific provision of the Code
- the omission to provide for cancellation of bail under Section 426 CrPC is due to inadvertence and not deliberate
- when subsequent conduct of an appellant prima facie indicates abuse of process
- Section 561A is attracted and the High Court is entitled to cancel bail pending appeal.
