Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave from an order of the Bombay High Court which had cancelled bail granted to an accused in bailable offences. The appellant had been charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. On December 9, 1957, the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay released the appellant on bail of Rs. 75,000 with one surety under Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The complainant subsequently applied on January 4, 1958 for cancellation of bail, but the Magistrate dismissed the application on January 9, 1958, holding that Section 496 conferred no jurisdiction to cancel bail. The complainant then moved the Bombay High Court by a revisional application and a separate application invoking the High Court's inherent power under Section 561A of the Code. The High Court, comprising Chagla C.J. and Datar J., held that Section 561A empowered the High Court to cancel bail even in a bailable offence in a proper case. After examining material placed before it, the High Court concluded that it would not be safe to permit the appellant to remain at large, and accordingly cancelled the bail bond, ordered the appellant's arrest and committed him to custody. The order was passed on January 14, 1958. On appeal to the Supreme Court, special leave was limited to the question of construction of Section 496 read with Section 561A of the Code. The appellant contended that Section 496 gives a person accused of a bailable offence an absolute right to bail, and since the legislature had specifically provided for cancellation of bail in non-bailable offences under Section 497(5) but omitted any corresponding power under Section 496, the omission was deliberate and the High Court could not invoke inherent power to circumvent it. The appellant argued that Section 561A could not be used when the matter was covered or inconsistent with specific provisions. The respondent/complainant argued that the High Court's inherent power was broad enough to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, and the accused's conduct after release warranted cancellation. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of bail provisions in Sections 496 to 498 and Section 426 of the Code. It recognized that under Section 496 an accused of a bailable offence has a right to be released on bail, unlike non-bailable offences where grant of bail is generally discretionary under Section 497. However, the Court held that this right is not absolute; if the accused's conduct subsequent to release is prejudicial to a fair trial, he forfeits the right. The Court emphasized that Section 561A was added in 1923 to save the inherent power of High Courts to make orders necessary to give effect to orders under the Code, prevent abuse of process of court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice. The Court clarified that inherent power cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions or where its exercise would be inconsistent with such provisions. Since no specific provision in the Code deals with cancellation of bail in bailable offences, the matter fell within the gap that Section 561A was intended to fill. The Court distinguished the Privy Council decision in Lala Jairam Das & Others v. King Emperor, (1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 120. It held that the High Court has power under Section 561A to cancel bail in a proper case, but the power must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only for the three purposes specified in the section. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order cancelling bail and directing custody.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Cancellation of Bail in Bailable Offence - Sections 496, 561A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898) - The appellant, accused of bailable offences under Section 120B IPC and Section 167(81) Sea Customs Act, was released on bail under Section 496 CrPC; the complainant sought cancellation alleging prejudicial conduct but the Magistrate held he lacked jurisdiction under Section 496. The High Court invoked inherent power under Section 561A and cancelled bail, directing arrest. The Supreme Court held that though Section 496 confers a right to bail, such right is forfeited if subsequent conduct is prejudicial to a fair trial, and the High Court can cancel bail under Section 561A to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of process or give effect to orders. The exercise of inherent power must be sparing, careful and cautious, not inconsistent with specific provisions. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Power of High Court - Scope and Limitations of Section 561A - Section 561A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Section 561A saves the inherent power of High Courts to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of process, or secure ends of justice. The power cannot be invoked in matters covered by specific provisions of the Code or where its exercise would be inconsistent with such provisions. It applies only to fill lacunae in procedural law. The Supreme Court distinguished Lala Jairam Das & Others v. King Emperor and held that cancellation of bail in a bailable offence was not covered by specific provisions, hence Section 561A could be invoked. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Criminal Procedure - Right to Bail under Section 496 - Forfeiture by Prejudicial Conduct - Sections 496, 561A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - A person accused of a bailable offence is entitled as of right to be released on bail under Section 496 when prepared to give bail; however, if his conduct subsequent to release is found prejudicial to a fair trial, he forfeits that right. The forfeiture can be made effective by invoking High Court's inherent power under Section 561A. The legislature's omission to provide a cancellation provision under Section 496 does not bar the High Court's inherent power because Section 561A was enacted to cover procedural gaps. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court has inherent power under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to cancel bail granted under Section 496 to a person accused of a bailable offence where subsequent conduct is prejudicial to a fair trial.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; Supreme Court held that High Court has inherent power under Section 561A to cancel bail granted under Section 496 in a proper case where accused's subsequent conduct is prejudicial to a fair trial, and such power must be exercised sparingly and with caution. The order of Bombay High Court cancelling bail and directing arrest was upheld.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 496 CrPC confers a right to bail on persons accused of bailable offences
- such right is forfeited if subsequent conduct is prejudicial to a fair trial
- High Court has inherent power under Section 561A CrPC to cancel bail in a proper case
- inherent power must be exercised sparingly
- carefully and with caution
- inherent power cannot be invoked when matter is covered by specific provisions or inconsistent with them
- Section 561A is limited to three purposes: give effect to orders
- prevent abuse of process
- secure ends of justice
- procedural gaps or lacunae in the Code can be filled by inherent power.
