STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. PHEIROIJAM JOY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Ch. Bidyamani Devi, learned P. P. and also Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bimol Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The present petition has been filed under Section 397, Cr. P. C. read with Sections 439(2) and 482, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 15-12-99 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Crl. Misc. (B) Case No. 90/99 existing out of FIR Case No. 179(11) 99 LPS under Sections 366/342/376/120-B, IPC. On a pointed asking from this Court, Ms. Bidyamani Devi, learned P. P. has submitted that this application may be treated only as an application under Section 439(2), Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 15-12-99. The learned P. P. has strongly argued that the learned Sessions Judge has illegally and without considering the materials on record granted bail to the accused person. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the seriousness and gravity of the offence. Save and except those she has not advanced any other grounds for cancellation of the said bail, granted in an offence under Section 376, IPC.

(3.) It is a settled position of law that the petition for cancellation of bail shall not be taken in such light manner. In a catena of decisions of the Apex Court, it was held that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of individual and it must not be lightly resorted to. The Apex Court had reiterated in its decision that there must be a very cogent and overwhelming grounds as well as compelling circumstances for which bail granted can be cancelled. The Apex Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi, reported in AIR 1978 SC 961 : (1978 Cri LJ 952) held that rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail once granted. That is because cancellation of bail interferes with the liberty already secured by the accused either on the exercise of discretion by the Court or by the thrust of law. In another case, reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 : (1984 Cri LJ 160), Bhagirath Sinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. Even where a prima facie case is established the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence.