IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      1234              OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4689 of 2007)

Subodh Kumar Yadav ... Appellant

Versus

State of Bihar and Anr. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  judgment  dated  

May 2, 2007, rendered by learned Single Judge of  

High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna  in  Criminal  

Miscellaneous  No.  2790  of  2004  by  which  order  

dated January 8, 2004, passed by learned Sessions  

Judge, Purnia in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13 of  

2003 cancelling the bail granted to the appellant by  

the  learned  S.D.J.M.,  Purnia  vide  order  dated  

October 19, 2002, passed in C.A. No. 1098 of 2001  

with  reference  to  the  complaint  filed  by  the  

respondent No. 2 for alleged commission of offence  

punishable under Section 498A IPC, is confirmed.

3. The  marriage  of  the  appellant  was  solemnized  

with the respondent No. 2 on June 22, 1989.  After  

2

the  marriage,  the  respondent  No.  2  started  living  

with  the  appellant  at  her  matrimonial  home.  

During  the  subsistence  of  the  marriage,  the  

respondent No. 2 gave birth to two daughters.  It is  

the case of the respondent No. 2 that the appellant  

and his family members  started subjecting her to  

mental and physical cruelty for bringing insufficient  

dowry  and  also  because  she  objected  to  illicit  

relations of the appellant with his sister-in-law Asha  

Devi.  The case of the respondent No. 2 is that not  

only  she  was  subjected  to  physical  and  mental  

cruelty, but money was extorted from her in order  

to get more dowry and an attempt to kill  her was  

made as well as her streedhan was not returned to  

her  in  spite  of  several  demands.   Under  the  

circumstances, she filed complaint case No. 1098 of  

2001  in  the  Court  of  learned  Chief  Metropolitan  

Magistrate,  Purnia  and  prayed  to  convict  the  

appellant  and  others  for  commission  of  offences  

3

punishable under Sections 498A, 384, 307 and 406  

IPC.   

4. The learned Magistrate examined the respondent  

No.  2 on oath.   The learned Magistrate  thereafter  

called  upon  the  respondent  No.  2  to  offer  other  

witnesses for examination.  Therefore, Bhageshwar  

Prasad Yadav, who is father of the respondent No.  

2, was examined as witness No. 1, Birendra Kumar,  

an independent person, was examined as witness  

No.2  and  Ramanuj  Kumar,  who  is  cousin  of  the  

respondent No. 2, was examined as witness No. 3.  

The  learned  Magistrate  perused  the  statements  

made by the witnesses and was of the opinion that  

prima facie commission of offence punishable under  

Section  498A  IPC  was  made  out  against  the  

accused.  He, therefore, took cognizance of the said  

offence  and issued summons against  the accused  

including the appellant.   On receipt  of  summons,  

4

the appellant and others filed Criminal Revision No.  

233 of 2002 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge,  

Purnia  for  quashing  the  same.   Therefore,  the  

record  of  the  case  was called  for by the Sessions  

Court from the Court of learned Magistrate.

5. On October 19, 2002, the appellant surrendered  

before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First  

Class,  Purnia  and  moved  an  application  for  bail.  

Since the original record was not available  as the  

same  was  summoned  by  the  Sessions  Court,  the  

learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order calling  

for  the  original  record  from the  Court  of  learned  

District  and Sessions Judge,  Purnia.  Though the  

copy of the application for bail  was served on the  

learned Advocate for the original complainant, the  

learned  Magistrate  had not indicated in the order  

summoning  record  of  the  case  from the  Sessions  

Court  that  the  bail  application  moved  by  the  

5

appellant would  be  heard  on the same day.   The  

original case record of Complaint Case No. 1098 of  

2001 was received in the Court of learned Judicial  

Magistrate  First  Class  on  the  same  day,  i.e.,  on  

October 19, 2002.  The learned Magistrate took up  

the bail  application for  hearing  on the  same day.  

The learned Magistrate took into consideration the  

petition for divorce filed by the appellant against the  

respondent No. 2 in the year 2002 as well as other  

documents  and  without  hearing  either  the  

respondent No. 2 or her learned counsel, enlarged  

the appellant on bail.

6. Thereupon, the respondent No. 2 moved Criminal  

Miscellaneous  No.  13  of  2003  in  the  Court  of  

learned  District  and  Sessions  Judge,  Purnia  for  

cancellation  of  bail.   The  learned  Session  Judge  

heard both the parties. It was noticed by him that  

the bail application was submitted by the appellant  

6

on  the  same  day  on  which  he  had  surrendered  

before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First  

Class.  It  was further observed that after learning  

that the original record was lying in Sessions Court,  

Purnia  in  connection  with  Criminal  Revision  No.  

233 of 2002, filed by the appellant and others for  

quashing  issuance  of  summons,  the  learned  

Magistrate  had  passed  an  order  calling  for  the  

record of the case from the Sessions Court.  It was  

also  noticed  that  the  learned  Magistrate  did  not  

hear the learned counsel of the complainant and no  

order was passed by him fixing hearing of the bail  

application, but bail was granted on the same day.  

It  was  noted  by  the  learned  Sessions  Judge  that  

though the complaint was filed by the respondent  

No.  2 on October 9,  2002,  the learned Magistrate  

had  taken  into  consideration  divorce  proceedings  

initiated by the appellant in the year 2000, i.e., after  

taking cognizance of the offence and had also relied  

7

upon  other  documents.   Having  taken  into  

consideration  relevant  circumstances  emerging  

from the record  of  the case,  the learned  Sessions  

Judge  concluded  that  the  learned  Magistrate  had  

enlarged  the  appellant  on  bail  on  considerations  

other than judicial.  Therefore, the learned Sessions  

Judge, by order dated January 8, 2004, allowed the  

application  filed  by  the  respondent  No.  2  and  

cancelled the bail granted to the appellant.

7. Feeling  aggrieved,  the  appellant  moved  High  

Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna  by  way  of  filing  

Criminal  Miscellaneous  Application  No.  2790  of  

2004.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court  

has rejected  the application filed  by the appellant  

vide judgment dated May 2, 2007, giving rise to the  

instant appeal.

8

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the  

parties and taken into consideration the documents  

forming part of the appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that  

cancellation of bail can be only with reference to conduct  

subsequent  to  release  on  bail  and  the  supervening  

circumstances.   According  to  him  an  application  for  

cancellation will  not  be  maintainable  with reference  to  

what transpired prior to the grant of bail.  He relied upon  

the following observations in State of U.P. vs. Amarmani  

Tripathi [(2005)  8  SCC  21],  in  support  of  the  said  

contention: -

“The  decisions  in  Dolat  Ram v.  State  of   Haryana [1995  (1)  SCC  349]  and  Samarendranath Bhattacharjee v. State of West  Bengal [2004  (11)  SCC  165]  relate  to  applications  for  cancellation  of  bail  and  not  appeals  against  orders  granting  bail.   In  an  application  for  cancellation,  conduct  subsequent  to  release  on  bail  and  the  supervening  circumstances  alone  are  relevant.  But in an appeal  against grant of  bail,  all  aspects  that  were  relevant  under  Section 439 read with Section 437, continue to  

9

be  relevant.   We,  however,  agree  that  while  considering and deciding the appeals against  grant of bail, where the accused has been at  large  for  a  considerable  time,  the  post-bail  conduct  and  supervening  circumstances  will  also have to be taken note of.  But they are not  the only factors to be considered as in the case  of applications for cancellation of bail.”

[emphasis supplied]

A  careful  reading  of  the  said  observations  shows  that  

while considering the factors relevant for consideration of  

bail  already  granted  vis-à-vis  the  factors  relevant  for  

rejection  of  bail,  this  Court  pointed  out  that  for  

cancellation  of  bail,  conduct  subsequent  to  release  on  

bail and supervening circumstances will be relevant.  The  

said observations were not intended to restrict the power  

of a superior court to cancel bail in appropriate cases on  

other  grounds.   In  fact  it  is  now well  settled  that if  a  

superior  court  finds  that  the  court  granting  bail  had  

acted  on  irrelevant  material  or  if  there  was  non-

application  of  mind  or  failure  to  take  note  of  any  

statutory  bar  to  grant  bail,  or  if  there  was  manifest  

10

impropriety  as  for  example  failure  to  hear  the  public  

prosecutor/complainant  where  required,  an  order  for  

cancellation of bail can in fact be made.  (See Gajanand  

Agarwal v.  State  of  Orissa [2006  (9)  SCALE  378]  and  

Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed v. Mehmood Hussain [2007  

(10) SCC 368).

2. Further, while cancelling bail, the superior Court  

would  be  justified  in  considering  the  question  

whether  irrelevant  material  were  taken  into  

consideration by the court granting bail.   

3. The  facts  of  the  present  case  indicate  that  the  

appellant  himself  and  others  had  moved  the  Sessions  

Court  by way of  filing  revision  for  quashing summons  

issued  by  the  learned  Magistrate  and,  therefore,  the  

learned  Sessions Judge  had called  for  the record  from  

the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.  On  

October  19,  2002,  the  appellant  had,  all  of  a  sudden  

decided  to  surrender  before  the  learned  Judicial  

11

Magistrate  First  Class,  Purnia  and  presented  a  bail  

application.   The  learned  Magistrate  found  that  the  

record  of  the  case  was  lying  in  Sessions  Court  with  

reference to the revision, which was filed by the appellant  

and  others.   The  learned  Magistrate  did  not  think  it  

proper  to  wait  at  all  and  by  passing  a  judicial  order  

called for the record pending in a superior court.  In view  

of  the judicial  order  passed by the learned  Magistrate,  

the  Registry  of  the  Sessions  Court  forthwith  sent  the  

record  of  the  case  to  the  court  of  learned  Judicial  

Magistrate  First  Class.   Thereafter,  the  learned  

Magistrate  proceeded  to  hear  the  bail  application  

submitted by the appellant.  In the order summoning the  

record,  it  was  nowhere  indicated  by  the  learned  

Magistrate  that  the  application  submitted  by  the  

appellant  would  be  heard  on  the  same  day,  i.e.,  on  

October  19,  2002.   The  learned  advocate  for  the  

complainant was not put on notice at all and, therefore,  

could  not  remain  present  at  the  time  when  the  bail  

12

application  was  taken  up  for  hearing.   The  learned  

Magistrate  considered  the  documents  produced  by  the  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant.   Admittedly  those  

documents were subsequent in point of time to taking of  

cognizance.   After  considering  those  documents,  the  

learned Magistrate enlarged the appellant on bail.  The  

undue haste exhibited by the learned Magistrate as well  

as his decision to hear the bail application on the same  

day  without  hearing  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

complainant,  compelled  the  learned  Sessions  Judge  to  

draw adverse inferences against the learned Magistrate.  

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this  

Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge  

was justified  in drawing adverse  inferences  against the  

learned Magistrate  and holding that the order  granting  

bail  was passed  by the learned  Judicial  Magistrate  for  

considerations other than judicial.   This finding of fact  

has been confirmed by the High Court in the following  

terms: -

13

“Heard the learned counsel  for both the  parties.  Perused the complaint petition as well  as the order of both the courts.  There is no  doubt  that  the  bail  of  the  petitioner  was  granted  in  a  very  mysterious  circumstances.  The  entire  office  as  well  as  the  Presiding  Officer  was  so  in  haste  that  all  formalities  including  calling  of  the  record  from  the  Sessions  Court  were  done  on  the  same  day  and the order of granting bail was also passed  on  the  same  day  behind  the  back  of  complainant’s lawyer.  The order of the learned  lower  court  which runs in so many pages  is  sufficient  to  show  how  much  the  Presiding  Officer  was  interested  to  grant  bail  to  the  petitioner who is husband of the opposite part  no. 2.”

2. The  findings  recorded  by  the  learned  Sessions  

Judge  and the High Court  make  it  clear  that the  

learned Magistrate had exercised discretion vested  

in him under Section 437 with oblique motive.  The  

learned  Magistrate  was  apparently  bent  upon  

granting  bail  to  the  appellant  and,  therefore,  not  

only decided to hear the bail application presented  

by  the  appellant  on  the  same  day,  but  had  also  

called  for  record  from  the  superior  court  and  

14

granted  bail  to  the  appellant  without  hearing  the  

learned  counsel  for  the  complainant.   As  the  

judicial  discretion  was  exercised  by  the  learned  

Judicial  Magistrate  First  Class  in  an  arbitrary  

manner  and  with  oblique  motives,  the  learned  

Sessions  Court  was  justified  in  setting  aside  the  

order  granting  bail  to  the  appellant.   To  say  the  

least,  the  order  passed  by the learned  Magistrate  

was  the  result  of  arbitrary  exercise  of  discretion  

vested in him.  Further the learned Magistrate had  

taken  into  consideration  totally  irrelevant  

documents  which  were  never  referred  to  in  the  

complaint at all.  By taking into consideration those  

documents  the  learned  Magistrate  exhibited  his  

anxiety to release the appellant anyhow on bail.  On  

the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this  

Court is of the opinion that the High Court did not  

commit  any  error  in  confirming  the  order  of  the  

Sessions  Judge  cancelling  the  bail  which  was  

15

arbitrarily granted to the appellant by the learned  

Judicial  Magistrate  First Class  and, therefore,  the  

instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

3. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is  

dismissed.

…………………………J. [R.V. Raveendran]

…………………………J. [J.M. Panchal]

New Delhi; July 15, 2009.

16