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)

J U D G M E N T

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e