CRL.A. No.  1712   of 2010 @ SLP(Crl.) 6100 of 2010  1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1712 OF 2010 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 6100 OF 2010]

 JAI KUMAR   ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

BALHARI & ANR.   ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Accused, aggrieved by the order of the High Court  

cancelling his bail has preferred this appeal.

3. Appellant happens to be the husband of the  deceased  

Meera  with  whom  he  married  on  23rd November,  2005.  

According to the prosecution, she committed suicide on 5th  

November, 2008.  On the statement of her father Balhari,  

FIR under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code  

was registered against the husband, mother-in-law Phulwati  

and sister-in-law Gyanwati.  After investigation, police  

submitted the charge sheet.  Accused filed an application  

for  discharge  along  with  an  application  filed  by  the  

appellant for grant of bail.  Additional Sessions Judge,  

Dwarka,  by   order  dated  27th  June,  2009  rejected  the

CRL.A. No.  1712   of 2010 @ SLP(Crl.) 6100 of 2010  2

application of discharge of all the accused excepting the  

mother-in-law.   By  order  of  the  same  day,  the  learned  

Additional Sessions Judge, granted bail to the appellant.

4. Aggrieved by the order of discharge of the mother-in-

law  and  granting  bail  to  the  appellant,  the  informant  

Balhari filed two separate applications  before the High  

Court which was registered as Criminal M.C. No. 3547 of  

2009 and Criminal MC No. 3506 of 2009.  By the impugned  

order dated 25th May, 2010, the order of discharge had been  

set aside and the order granting bail to the appellant has  

been cancelled.

5. Appellant aggrieved by the cancellation of his bail  

has preferred this appeal.

6. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, the learned Senior Counsel for  

the appellant submits that the Additional Sessions Judge  

after assigning reasons had granted bail to the appellant  

and  that  ought  not  to  have  been  cancelled  by  the  High  

Court.  He submits that the parameters for cancellation of  

bail is entirely different from that for granting of bail.  

Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf  

of  respondent  No.  1,  however,  submits  that  without  

discussing  the  merits  of  the  case, the trial court has

CRL.A. No.  1712   of 2010 @ SLP(Crl.) 6100 of 2010  3

granted  bail to  the appellant  and the  same was  rightly  

cancelled  by  the  High  Court.    In  support  of  the  

submission, he has placed reliance in a large number of  

decisions  of  this  Court  in  Puran  v.  Ram  Bilas  &  Anr.  

(2001) 6 SCC 338;  Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @  

Pappu Yadav & Anr.  (2004) 7 SCC 528;  Anwari Begum v. Sher  

Mohammad  &  Anr.   (2005)  7  SCC  326;  and   Ram  Govind  

Upadhyay v. Sudershan Singh & Ors.  (2002) 3 SCC 598.   

7. True it is, that the High Court possesses power to  

cancel the bail granted to an accused by an inferior Court  

but it is well-settled that the parameters for cancellation  

of bail and for granting of bail is entirely different.  

Here,  in the  present case,  the trial  court taking  into  

account the period of custody as also delay in conclusion  

of the trial, directed for the release of the appellant.  

Relevant portion of the order of the trial court in this  

regard reads as follows:

“Accused  is  in  custody  in  this  case  since   07/11/2008 and the trial of the case is going to take   time.  There is no likelihood of accused jumping the  bail  or  influencing  the  witnesses  in  any  manner.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,   accused  Jai  Kumar  is  admitted  to  bail  on  his   furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-   with one surety in the like amount.  The application  for bail stand disposed of.”

8. The  High Court,  however, has cancelled the  bail on

CRL.A. No.  1712   of 2010 @ SLP(Crl.) 6100 of 2010  4

its finding that the trial court has not given any reason  

for granting bail.  It has also observed that by the same  

order when the trial court has found materials to frame  

charge against the appellant, it ought not to have granted  

bail to him.  Relevant portion of the judgment of the High  

Court in this regard reads as follows:

“A perusal of the impugned bail order  would  show  that  the  learned  trial  court  has  not  given  any  reasons at all for releasing the husband on bail on the  same  day  of  framing  of  charges  under  Sections  498A/304B IPC against him.”

9. We have considered the rival submissions and we find  

that it was not a fit case in which the High Court should  

have cancelled the bail.  The trial court while granting  

bail  has  taken  into  consideration  the  period  of  

incarceration and further expected delay in conclusion of  

the trial.  The High Court, in our opinion, is not correct  

when it observes that the trial court has not given any  

reason to grant bail to the appellant.  Further, the High  

Court erred in holding that when there were materials to  

frame charge against the appellant the trial court ought  

not  to  have  granted  bail.   Charges  are  framed  when  

materials prima facie show the complicity of the accused in  

the crime.  It is not correct to say that bail is granted  

only   in  those   cases  where  there  are  no  materials.

CRL.A. No.  1712   of 2010 @ SLP(Crl.) 6100 of 2010  5

Considerations are entirely different for exercising the  

power to grant bail and to frame charge.  As the High Court  

had  cancelled  the  bail  on  erroneous  considerations,  the  

same requires to be interfered with by this Court.

10. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the  

impugned order of the High Court whereby it has cancelled  

the  bail  granted  to  the  appellant  with  the  observation  

aforesaid.  We make it clear that any observations made by  

us in this order  shall have no bearing on the merits of  

the case.

       ........................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ........................J      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 06, 2010.