caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Myakala Dharmarajam vs The State Of Telangana on 7 January, 2020Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1974- 1975 of 2019
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos.8882-8883 of 2019)
MYAKALA DHARMARAJAM & ORS. ETC.
…. Appellants
Versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.
….
Respondent (s)
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. Respondent No.2 in the above Appeals lodged a
complaint which was registered under Sections 148, 120 B,
302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) at Karimnagar Rural Police Station vide FIR No.155
dated 19.04.2019. It was alleged in the complaint that the
husband of Respondent No.2, Bojja Thirupathi was the
Chairman of the Fishermen Co-operative Society of
Chamanapalli village, Karimnagar District. Members of the
Society alone were permitted to carry out fishing activities
in the tanks in Rajasamudram and Appanapalli villages.
The membership of the Appellants in the Fishermen Co-
1
operative Society was cancelled due to which they were
not permitted to carry out fishing activities. Three years
before the complaint the husband of Respondent No.2 was
attacked by the Appellants at the village Panchayat office
and a criminal case was registered against the Appellants,
which was pending. On 19.04.2019, the husband of
Respondent No.2 went to Chamanapalli village to inspect
the tank. At about 5.00 pm, the Appellants attacked the
husband of Respondent No.2 with stones and he
succumbed to the injuries.
2. The Appellants moved applications for bail before the
Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar who summoned the
case diary, statements of the witnesses and other
connected records. The Principal Sessions Judge released
the Appellants on bail by imposing conditions that the
Appellants shall appear before the Karimnagar Rural Police
Station on every alternative day between 10.00 am to
05.00 pm and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of
the First Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Karimnagar. Another condition was imposed that the
Appellants shall not influence or tamper with the evidence.
2 | Page
3. Respondent No.2 filed a petition for cancellation of
bail under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. before the High Court for
the State of Telangana. On 10.07.2019, a charge sheet
was filed against the Appellants. According to the charge
sheet, all the accused gathered and planned to kill Bojja
Thirupathi on 19.04.2019. They formed into two groups.
The first group, consisting of A5, A7 to A11 and A15,
attacked the deceased and remaining persons were
standing guard near the tank. Even according to the
charge sheet, there is no overt act alleged against any of
the accused, except A6 who is alleged to have
strangulated the deceased with a towel.
4. We are informed at the bar that the case has been
committed for trial. The High Court allowed the
applications filed for cancellation of bail on the ground that
the Principal Sessions Judge did not consider the material
available on record before granting bail to the Appellants.
The High Court further held that the criminal antecedents
of the Appellants were not taken into account by the trial
Court. That apart, the High Court accepted the
submissions on behalf of Respondent No.2 that the
3 | Page
Appellants indulged in threatening the witnesses after
being released on bail.
5. The Appellants contended that no specific overt act
was attributed to any of the accused, except for omnibus
allegations made against them. It is argued that the
complaint that was made by Respondent No.2 is on the
basis of vague allegations regarding tampering with the
evidence. The Appellants urged that the order passed by
the High Court is liable to be set aside as there were no
compelling reasons for interfering with the order of the
Sessions Court by which they were released on bail.
6. The factors to be considered while granting bail have
been held by this Court to be the gravity of the crime, the
character of the evidence, position and status of the
accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating
the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the
evidence and witnesses, and obstructing the course of
justice etc. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar
factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to
a particular case may have to be taken into account by the
Court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is
4 | Page
prima facie case against the accused. For the purpose of
bail, the Court must not undertake meticulous examination
of the evidence collected by the police and comment on
the same.1
7. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar2 this Court
held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused
misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts
to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens
witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would
hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his
fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself
scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to
the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself
beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds
are illustrative and not exhaustive. 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.
1 Kanwar Singh Meena vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2012) 12 SCC 180
2 (1986) 4 SCC 481
5 | Page
8. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in
cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious
infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. 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 bail3.
9. Having perused the law laid down by this Court on
the scope of the power to be exercised in the matter of
cancellation of bails, it is necessary to examine whether
the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail is
perverse and suffers from infirmities which has resulted in
the miscarriage of justice. No doubt, the Sessions Court
did not discuss the material on record in detail, but there is
an indication from the orders by which bail was granted
that the entire material was perused before grant of bail.
It is not the case of either the complainant-Respondent
No.2 or the State that irrelevant considerations have been
taken into account by the Sessions Court while granting
bail to the Appellants. The order of the Sessions Court by
which the bail was granted to the Appellants cannot be
3 Kanwar Singh Meena vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra).
6 | Page
termed as perverse as the Sessions Court was conscious of
the fact that the investigation was completed and there
was no likelihood of the Appellant tampering with the
evidence.
10. The petition filed for cancellation of bail is both on
the grounds of illegality of the order passed by the
Sessions Court and the conduct of the Appellants
subsequent to their release after bail was granted. The
complaint filed by one Bojja Ravinder to the Commissioner
of Police, Karimnagar is placed on record by Respondent
No.2. It is stated in the complaint that the Appellants were
roaming freely in the village and threatening witnesses.
We have perused the complaint and found that the
allegations made therein are vague. There is no mention
about which accused out of the 15 indulged in acts of
holding out threats to the witnesses or made an attempt to
tamper with the evidence.
11. After considering the submissions made on behalf of
the parties and examining the material on record, we are
of the opinion that the High Court was not right in
cancelling the bail of the Appellants. The orders passed by
the Sessions Judge granting bail cannot be termed as
7 | Page
perverse. 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. Therefore, the Appeals are allowed and the
judgment of the High Court is set aside.
………………………………J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..…………………………….J.
[HEMANT GUPTA]
New Delhi,
January 07, 2020.
8 | Page
Comments