http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MOHAN SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SINGH, JASWANT PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1095            1978 SCR  (3) 127  1978 SCC  (2) 366

ACT: Criminal  Procedure  Code, (Act II of 1974),  1973  Sections 437,  439--Special powers of High Court under S.  439(2)  in cancelling bail.

HEADNOTE: The  bail granted by the Sessions to the appellant, who  was charged for an offence under section 5(2) of the  Prevention of  Corruption Act, was cancelled by the High Court  on  the ground  that he moved both the Sessions and the  High  Court simultaneously, without disclosing it to the Sessions Court. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court HELD  :  Refusal  of  bail is not  an  indirect  process  of punishing an accused person before he is convicted.  This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail.  The real basis of bail law is as laid down by the Supreme Court in [1978] 2 SCR 358 [127 G-H, 128A] Gurcharan Singh & Ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 358 reiterated.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1978. (Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order  dated 11th  January,  1978 of the Punjab & Haryana High  Court  in Criminal Misc.  No. 129-M of 1978). S.   K. Alehta for the Appellant. M.   M. Punchhi and P. C. Bhartari for the Respondent.                            ORDER The  offence alleged in this case against the  appellant  is one under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption  Act. Bail was granted by the Sessions Judge after hearing counsel on both sides but it was cancelled by the High Court  mainly for  the reason that the appellant had simultaneously  moved for  bail  in  the Sessions as well as  in  the  High  Court without  disclosing to the Sessions Court that he had  moved for  bail in the High Court.  This naturally made  the  High Court  feel that the party was not straight-forward  in  his dealings, with the Court.  The consequence was that the bail

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

already granted was reversed. Counsel for the State pressed before us that the  corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima-facie (according  to the  results of the investigation) was substantial.  Let  us assume  so.   Even then refusal of bail is not  an  indirect process  of  punishing  an  accused  person  before  he   is convicted.  This is a confusion regarding the rationale,  of bail.  This 128 Court has explained the real basis of bail law in  Gurcharan Singh  & ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1).   We do  not  think there is as yet any  allegation  against  the appellant  of  interference with the course  of  justice  or other well-established grounds for refusal of bail.  In this view, we direct that the appellant be allowed to continue on bail  until  further orders to the contrary  passed  by  the Sessions  Court  if  good  grounds  are  made  out  to   its satisfaction. S.R. Appeal allowed. (1) (1978) 2 S.C R. 358. 129