Cancellation of bail order is justified, if the order suffers from perverse finding: High Court of Karnataka
The cancellation of bail order can be done in cases where the order of granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores the relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of granting bail to the accused. this was held in MR. BRIJ MOHAN K.S v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Ors [CRIMINAL PETITION No.2489 of 2021] in the High Court of Karnataka by the single bench consisting of MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN.
Facts are petitioner is a partner of a firm, the accused persons had committed misappropriation of funds of the firm against which complaint was registered. Two of the accused persons had approached the Sessions Judge who granted anticipatory bail to one of the accused. The present petition is filed by the complainant for cancellation of the bail order.
The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the Sessions Judge is erroneous; based on extraneous consideration; the case is an economic offence and is in the interest of the public at large. The investigation is still under progress. The accused is the authority who was entrusted with the financial operation of the firm. He relied on P.Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement.
The counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent has not violated any bail conditions as enumerated in the anticipatory bail. The father of the complainant has misused the dominion and entrustment. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and his old age, it would not be advisable to send him to jail. He relied on the judgement of Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another.
The Court also made reference to the judgement of Apex court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi, and made the following observation,“The issue of cancellation of bail can only arise in criminal cases but it does not mean that every identical matter in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt like the guilt of the accused. The prosecution therefore can establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses. If there is reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice, is all that necessary for the prosecution to do in order to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail.”
The Court also made reference to the judgement of Apex court in Myakala Dharmarajam and others etc, wherein it was held that “while granting bail, the Court is required to consider the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the evidences and witnesses and obstructing the course of justice etc.”
Considering the precedents and the facts of the case the court held that, granting anticipatory bail to the accused will be a hurdle to the investigation and he may influence the witnesses and cause obstruction to the Investigating Officer in conducting a clear investigation. Therefore, it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner had made out sufficient ground for cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge. Thus the court allowed the petition while cancelling the bail order of the respondent.