Supreme Court Upholds Bail, Rejects Cancellation Based on Vague Allegations: Myakala Dharmarajam vs. State of Telangana (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 07, 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 18

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a High Court cancel bail granted by a lower court simply because it disagrees with the lower court’s assessment, or are there specific, stringent conditions that must be met? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in the case of *Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. vs. The State of Telangana & Anr.* The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the circumstances under which bail, once granted, can be cancelled, emphasizing that such cancellations should not be based on vague allegations but on concrete evidence of perversity or misuse of liberty. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The case stems from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging that her husband, Bojja Thirupathi, who was the Chairman of the Fishermen Co-operative Society of Chamanapalli village, was murdered by the Appellants. The Appellants’ membership in the society had been canceled, leading to a prior attack on the deceased three years before this incident, for which a criminal case was already pending. On April 19, 2019, Bojja Thirupathi was attacked with stones by the Appellants while inspecting a tank, which resulted in his death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, granted bail to the Appellants, imposing conditions such as regular appearances at the police station and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed a petition in the High Court of Telangana for cancellation of bail. The High Court allowed the petition, stating that the Sessions Court did not adequately consider the material on record and the criminal antecedents of the Appellants. The High Court also accepted the claim that the Appellants were threatening witnesses after being released on bail.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision involved in this case is Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This section empowers the High Court or the Court of Sessions to direct that any person who has been released on bail be arrested and committed to custody. The power to cancel bail is not to be exercised lightly, as it interferes with the liberty of an individual. The cancellation of bail is warranted only under specific circumstances, such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or attempting to flee from justice.

Arguments

The Appellants argued that:

• No specific overt act was attributed to any of the accused, except for vague, omnibus allegations.
• The complaint by Respondent No. 2 was based on vague allegations of tampering with evidence.
• There were no compelling reasons for the High Court to interfere with the Sessions Court’s order granting bail.

Respondent No. 2 argued that:

• The Principal Sessions Judge did not consider the material available on record before granting bail.
• The criminal antecedents of the Appellants were not taken into account by the trial Court.
• The Appellants indulged in threatening the witnesses after being released on bail.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted by the Sessions Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Kanwar Singh Meena vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. [(2012) 12 SCC 180] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the court should not undertake a meticulous examination of evidence at the stage of bail and should only opine if there is a prima facie case. It also established that cancellation of bail is justified if the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice.
• Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC 481] – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to for the grounds on which bail can be cancelled, such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, and tampering with evidence.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This provision was examined as it provides the power to the High Court and Court of Sessions to cancel bail.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Meena vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. [(2012) 12 SCC 180]* was used to emphasize that the court should not undertake a meticulous examination of evidence at the stage of bail and should only opine if there is a prima facie case. It also established that cancellation of bail is justified if the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice.
• The Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC 481]* was used to define the grounds on which bail can be cancelled, such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, and tampering with evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Sessions Court’s order granting bail was not found to be perverse. The court had perused the material on record and was conscious of the fact that the investigation was complete and there was no likelihood of the Appellants tampering with the evidence.
• The allegations of witness tampering were vague and lacked specific details. The complaint did not mention which of the 15 accused were involved in threatening the witnesses.
• The High Court’s decision to cancel bail was deemed to be an overreach, as it interfered with the liberty of the Appellants without sufficient cause.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the cancellation of bail is a harsh order and should not be resorted to lightly. The Court stated, “It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.” The Court also noted, “If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail.” However, in this case, the Court found that the Sessions Court had not ignored any relevant material and that the allegations against the Appellants were vague. The Court concluded, “The complaint alleging that the Appellants were influencing witnesses is vague and is without any details regarding the involvement of the Appellants in threatening the witnesses.”

Key Takeaways

• Cancellation of bail is a harsh order and should not be resorted to lightly.
• Bail can be cancelled if the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice.
• Vague allegations of witness tampering are not sufficient grounds for cancellation of bail.
• The court must not undertake a meticulous examination of evidence at the stage of bail.
• The High Court should not interfere with the order of the Sessions Court unless the order is perverse or there is a clear misuse of liberty.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The bail granted by the Sessions Court was restored.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot cancel bail granted by a Sessions Court based on vague allegations of witness tampering. The cancellation of bail requires a finding of perversity in the Sessions Court’s order or concrete evidence of misuse of liberty by the accused. This judgment reinforces the principle that the liberty of an individual should not be curtailed without sufficient justification. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in *Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. vs. The State of Telangana & Anr.* underscores the importance of protecting individual liberty and ensuring that bail cancellations are not based on flimsy grounds. The Court emphasized that a Sessions Court’s order should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence of perversity or misuse of liberty. This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise caution while cancelling bail and to rely on concrete evidence rather than vague allegations.