CANCELLATION OF BAIL – WHO CAN ? M.C.R.C. NO.6160/96

CANCELLATION OF BAIL – WHO CAN ?
M.C.R.C. NO.6160/96
o VEER SINGH Vs. STATE
(Not yet published in any of the magazine)
Following is the extract from the Order of the Hon’ble Justice Shri Dipak Misra, M.P. High Court, Jabalpur :
It is to be borne in mind that an accused is not entitled to control the proceeding at his own sweet-will.  He cannot prolong the trial at his whim and fancy.  Caprice has no role to place in a criminal trial.  If an accused permitted to raise a plea that inspite of his non appearance from time to time, the trial Judge or the trial Magistrate is bound to enlarge him on bail because there has been no cancellation of the original bail order granted by the superior court, what would be against the mandate of law and nugatory of the provisions enumerated under sections 436(2), 437(5), 439(2), 446 and 446 and 446 A of Cr.P.C. read as a harmonious whole.  Sometimes a doubt arises whether the court of Session while granting bail to an accused would include a condition that is the accused fails to attend in the trial court he shall have no right to claim bail on the basis of his earlier bail order as the bial order would stand automatically cancelled and the Magistrate would be at liberty to consider the bail-application a fresh.  As analysed and stated earlier, once the accused does not appear in a court and is produced in custody court, or surrenders voluntarily being aware of issue of such warrant, all other provisions of the chapter XXXIII will come into play and the Magistrate can refuse to release the accused and he would have no right in law to contend that he is entitled to be enlarged on bail, as the order by which he was enlarged has not been canceled.  In view of this, even if there is no condition at the time of grant of bail, as a consequence of non-appearance of the accused before the learned trial Judge or trying Magistrate, the said court would have complete liberty to deal with him in accordance with law.  If the said Court is satisfied that there are cogent and sufficient reasons for non-appearance of the accused he may exonerate and release him on fresh bail bonds with the same conditions or more onerous conditions with regard to the surety and the sum.  He is also at liberty, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, to refuse him to enlarge him on bail.  The said order would be subject to challenge before the superior court.
Cases referred:
1.AIR 1978 SC 527, Babu Singh Vs. State.
2.AIR 1978 SC 961, State Vs. Sanjay Gandhi.
3.AIR 1958 SC 376, Talab Hazi Vs. Madhukar.
4.AIR 1967 SC 1639, Ratanlal Vs. Asst. Collector.
5.1986 Cr.L.J. 1235, Johani Wilson Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Please refer to Article “Cancellation of Bail-who can”, a debate published in Vol. III Part IV 1997 August Part Page 29.
Thus in pending cases before the Court, a Magistrate may exercise jurisdiction to grant or refuse to grant bail and even if bail was granted by a superior court and accused jumps the bail, the trial Court has jurisdiction not only to forfeit the bail bonds or to cancel and grant the fresh order of bail.
But in case where accused has been released on bail u/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. has been extended with a facility that instead of attending the High Court/Superior Court he may approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate for periodical attendance causing there by least harassment, inconvenience and expenditure for attendance. De facto he is reporting his presence before the concerned C.J.M./ Magistrate but De Jure he is appearing before the  Superior Court/High Court through that Magistrate. Therefore, he is obliged to attend the Magisterial Court as and when directed. The accused is not at liberty to control the proceedings at his own sweet will in the Magisterial Court as envisaged by Hon'ble Shri Justice Dipak Misra in his celebrated order on bail in the case of Veer Singh Vs. State as referred to above.
If an accused whose sentence only is suspended subject to the decision of the appeal/revision is not permitted to commit the breach of the terms and conditions of the bail order. And if so commits the concerned Magistrate has jurisdiction and liberty to deal with the accused. He may condone the absence or take suitable action u/s 89-446 and 446A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and send him to jail. This cannot be interpreted as transgressing the powers by the Magistrate. The directions given by the Superior Court / High Court are to be complied with by the accused and the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate has inherent powers to take suitable action by cancellation of bail order, forfeiture of bail bonds, recovery thereof and send him to jail till he is able to produce fresh order of bail from the Superior Court/High Court.
TO SUMMARISE IT :
(a)  Magistrate has power to arrest the accused u/s 89 of the Cr.P.C.

(b)  He is under obligation to intimate the circumstance which lead him to take action u/s 89 of the Cr.P.C. or other suitable action as the case may be;
(c)  He has jurisdiction to proceed u/s 446 and 446A of the Code;
(d)  Attention is also drawn to the last few lines of Chintamani's case referred to above .

              M.C.R.C. NO.6160/96 -VEER SINGH Vs. STATE of M.P.