Trial Courts Can Cancel Supreme Court Bail: Landmark Ruling Settles Jurisdictional Confusion

 In a groundbreaking judgment that resolves a long-standing jurisdictional confusion in criminal law, the Supreme Court has definitively established that trial courts possess the authority to cancel bail granted by Constitutional Courts, including the Supreme Court itself, when bail conditions are violated.

 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA through the CBI Versus VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI, SLP(Crl) No. 7865/2025: Facts and Background

Print Page

Whether factors are to be taken in consideration while deciding bail application?

 It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the Accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi MANU/SC/0193/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) MANU/SC/0420/1978 : (1978) 1 SCC 118]. While a vague allegation that the Accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the Accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan MANU/SC/0214/2004 : (2004) 7 SCC 528: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1938 of 2017.

Decided On: 14.11.2017

 Anil Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Ors.

Print Page

Whether application for bail can be rejected because prima facie case exists against accused?

In Bhagirath Singh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 Supreme Court of India 372, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the only two material considerations for cancellation of bail are -

(i)Apprehension of the accused absconding, and

(ii)of his and tampering with prosecution witnesses.

The learned Sessions Judge did not discuss, in his order, as to whether there was any likelihood of the applicants absconding or not facing the trial, or tampering with the witnesses. Thus, he cancelled the bail without being satisfied on these aspects.

It does not appear that the applicants would not be available to face the trial.

 All said and done, the elementary principle that 'pre-trial detention can never be punitive in nature', has not undergone any change over the years. Bail is not to be refused merely because a prima facie case exists (except in cases of statutory prohibition, as imposed by some special statutes). The learned Sessions Judge overlooked the  basic concept of bail and rather unnecessarily criticized the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The orders passed by him give an impression that he refused bail because he was of the view that the accused appeared to have committed the alleged offences.

Bombay High Court

Lalit Laxmandas Soni vs The State Of Union Territory & Anr. on 11 July, 2013

Bench: A.M. Thipsay

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.514 OF 2013

Citation:2013(5)ABR164,2013ALLMR(Cri)3460, 2014(2)BomCR(Cri)757

Print Page