TALAB HAJI HUSSAIN Vs. MADHUKAR PURSHOTTAM MONDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, along with others, has been charged under S. 120-B of the Indian, Penal Code and S. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act (8 of 1878). There is no doubt that the offences charged against the appellant are bailable offences. Under S. 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant was released on bail of Rs. 75,000 with one surety for like amount on December 9, 1957 by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate at Bombay. On January 4, 1958, an application was made by the complainant before the learned Magistrate for cancellation of thew bail; the learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the application on the ground that under S. 496 he had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Against this order, the complainant preferred a revisional application before the High Court of Bombay. Another application was preferred by the complainant before the same Court invoking its inherent power under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chagla C. J. and Datar J. who heard these applications took the view that, under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court had inherent power to cancel the bail granted to a person accused of a bailable offence and that, in a proper case, such power can and must be exercised in the interests of justice. The learned Judges then considered the material produced before the Court and came to the conclusion that, in the present case, it would not be safe to permit the appellant to be at large. That is why the application made by the complainant invoking the High Courts' inherent power under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed, the bail-bond executed by the appellant was cancelled and an order was passed directing that the appellant be arrested forthwith and committed to custody. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court in appeal by special leave. Special, leave granted to the appellant has, however, been limited to the question of the construction of S. 496 read with S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus the point of law which falls to be considered in the present appeal is whether, in the case of a person accused of a bailable offence where bail has been granted to him under S. 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it can be cancelled in a proper case by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure This question is no doubt of considerable importance and its decision would depend upon the construction of the relevant sections of the Code.

(2.) The material provisions on the subject of bail are contained in Ss. 496 to 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 496 deals with persons accused of bailable offences. It provides that

(3.) There is no doubt that under S. 496 a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail pending his trial. As soon as it appeard that the accuses person is prepared to give bail, the police officer or the Court before whom he offers to give bail, is bound to release him on such terms as to bail as may appear to the officer or the Court to be reasonable. It would even be open to the officer or the Court to discharge such person on executing his bond as provided in the section instead of taking bail from him. The position of persons accused of non-bailable offences is entirely different. Though the recent amendments made in the provisions of S. 497 have made definite improvement in favour of persons accused of non-bailable offences, it would nevertheless be correct to say that the grant of bail in such cases is generally a matter in the discretion of the authorities in question. The classification of offences into the two categories of bailable and nonbailable offences may perhaps be explained on the basis that bailable offences are generally regarded as less grave and serious than non-bailable offences. On this basis it may not be easy to explain why, for instance offenced under Ss. 477, 477-A, 475 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code should be regarded as bailable whereas offences under S. 379 should be non-bailable. However, it cannot be disputed that S. 496 recognizes that a person accused of a bailable offence has a right to be enlarged on bail and that is a consideration on which Shri Purushottam, for the appellant, has very strongly relied.