ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਰੱਦ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ (Grounds of cancellation of bail)

ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਰੱਦ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ

(Grounds of cancellation of bail)

ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਜ਼ੁਰਮਾਂ ਵਰਗੇ ਹੋਰ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਕਰਨਾ, ਚਲ ਰਹੀ ਤਫਤੀਸ਼ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਖਲ ਅੰਦਾਜ਼ੀ, ਗਵਾਹੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਛੇੜ-ਛਾੜ ਦਾ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਯਤਨ, ਮੁਦਈ ਜਾਂ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਧਮਕੀਆਂ, ਭਗੌੜਾ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਯਤਨ, ਆਪਣੇ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤੀਏ ਦੀ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਹਰ ਹੋਣ ਦਾ ਯਤਨ, ਕਿਸੇ ਬਾਹਰਲੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਵਿੱਚ ਭੱਜ ਜਾਣ ਦੀ ਸੰਭਾਵਨਾ ਅਦਿ ਦੇ ਆਧਾਰ ਤੇ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਰੱਦ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

1. ਜੇ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦੇ ਹੁਕਮ ਵਿੱਚ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤਰੁੱਟੀਆਂ (serious legal infirmity) ਹੋਣ ਤਾਂ ਹੁਕਮ ਰੱਦ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case (i) : Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State of Delhi Administration, 1978 Cri.L.J.129(1)

Para “28. We have set out above the material portions of the order of the Sessions Judge from which it is seen that he did not take into proper account the grave apprehension of the prosecution that there was a likelihood of the appellants tampering with the prosecution witnesses. In the peculiar nature of the case revealed from the allegations and the position of the appellants in relation to the eye-witnesses it was incumbent upon the Sessions Judge to give proper weight to the serious apprehension of the prosecution with regard to tampering with the eye-witnesses, which was urged before him in resisting the application for bail.

29. XXX
30. XXX
31. We are satisfied that the High Court has correctly appreciated the entire position and the Sessions Judge did not at the stage the case was before him. We will not, therefore, be justified under Art.136 of the Constitution in interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court in cancelling the bail of the appellants in this case.”

2. ਜੇ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਦੀ ਸੰਗੀਨਤਾ, ਦੋਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਛੇੜ-ਛਾੜ ਕਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਮੁਦਈ/ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਧਮਕਾਉਣ ਦੀਆਂ ਸੰਭਾਵਨਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਰੱਦ ਕਰਕੇ, ਅਤਿ ਸੰਖੇਪ (non speaking) ਹੁਕਮ ਸੁਣਾਇਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਅਜਿਹਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਰੱਦ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case (i) : Panchanan Mishra Vs.Digamber Mishra, 2005 Cr.L.J.1721, AIR 2005 SC 1299 (SC)

“18.        Looking into the gravity of the crime, apprehension of tampering with the evidence and threats to the life of the complainant and other witnesses given by the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court did not take into proper account the grave apprehension of the prosecution that there was a likelihood of the accused persons tampering with the prosecution witnesses. In the peculiar nature of the case revealed from the allegations and the position of the accused in relation to the eye-witnesses it was incumbent upon the High Court to give proper weight to the serious apprehension of the complainant which was urged before him in resisting the application for bail. The High Court, in our opinion, had failed to properly appreciate the entire position. Therefore, this Court will be justified under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting the bail of the accused persons…”

Case (ii) : Puran vs. Rambilas and another, 2001 Crl.L.J. 2566 (SC)

Para “9. ….. It is, however, to be noted that this Court has clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled.”

3. ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਕੇਵਲ ਮਜ਼ਬੂਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ (overwhelming) ਹਾਲਾਤਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੀ ਰੱਦ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case (i) : Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Cri.L.J.3712 (SC – FB)

Para “11. Cancellation of bail is harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to”.

Case (ii) : Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others, 2002 Crl.L.J. 1849 (1)

Para “8. Availability of overwhelming circumstances is necessary for an order as regards the cancellation of the bail order”.

Case (iii) : Dolat Ram and others vs State of Haryana 1995 (1) SCC 349 (SC)

“However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”

4. ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਰੱਦ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ:

ੳ) ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਤੇ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੋਣ ਬਾਅਦ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦਾ ਵਿਵਹਾਰ ਅਤੇ
ਅ) ਬਾਅਦ ਦੇ ਹਾਲਾਤ

Case (i) : State through CBI Vs.Amarmani Tripathi, 2005 Crl.L.J. 4149 (SC)

Para “18. In an application for cancellation, conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone are relevant.”

Case (ii) : The State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961 (SC)

“….. providing by the test of balance of probabilities that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary in order to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail.”

Case (iii) : Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 (SC)

“Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail.