# GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) - **Citation:** [1978] 2 S.C.R. 358 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1977-12-06 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 1977 - **Bench:** P. K. Goswami, v. D. TuLzAPURKAR - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gurcharan-singh-ors-v-state-delhi-administration-7381 - **Pages:** 13 ## Headnote Collstitution of India-Art. 136-When Supre1ne Court would interfere with order cuncelling bail by High Court. Crhninal Procedure Code 1973-Sections 437 439 and 497-Bail-Princi~ pies .for grant of-Cancellation of. ' The prosecution is launched against the appellant accused who are ranging. from the Deputy Inspector General of Police to the Police Constables on the ground that they were party to a criminal conspiracy to kill Sunder and caused bis death by drowning him in Yamuna River pursuant to the conspiracy. Sunder was said to be a notorious dacoit who was wanted in several cases of murder and dacoity alleged to have been committed by him in Delhi and elsewhere. It is stated that by May 1976 Sunder became a security risk for Sanjay GandhL The appellants were arrested in connection with the prosecution between 10th June 1977 and 12th July 1977. The Magistrate declined to release them on bail. Thereafter, they approached the Sessions Judge under s. 439(2) of the Cr. P. C. 1973. The Sessions Judge granted bail to ~he 4 appellants. Thereafter the State moved the High Court under s. 439 (2) against the order of the Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail. The Sessions Judge while granting. the bail held that the arguments of the prosecution that if the appellants were relea<:.ed on bail they \vould misuse their freedom to tamper with the witnesses \Vas not quite convincing. The learned Judge further held that there was little to gain by tampering with the witnesses who have themselves already tampered with their evidence by making contradictory statements in respect of the same transaction. The learned Judge also held that there was inordinate delay in registering the case and that there was little probability of the appellants fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses and also having regard to the character of evidence the court was inclined to grant bail to the appellants. The High Court while setting aside the orders of the Sessions Judge observed that considering the nature of the offence, character of the evidence, including the fact that some of the witnesses during preliminary enquiry did not fully support the prosecution case, the reasonable _apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and all other factors relevant for consideration for grant or refusal of bail in a non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life there was no option but to cancel the bail. In an appeal by special leave, the appellants contended ( 1) The old Criminal Procedure Code refers to an accused being "brought before a Court" whereas s. 437(1) of Cr. P. C. 1973 uses the expression "brought before a Court other than the High Court or a Court of Sessions". Therefore, the limitations laid down in s. 497 ( 1) to the effect that "shall not be so relevant if there appears reasonable ground for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life" are not in the way of the High Court or the Court of Sessions in dealing with bail under s. 439 of the Code. (2) Under section 439(2) the High Court could ~ot entertain application for cancellation of bail and it v.ras only the court of sess1ons that was competent_ ll' to deal with the matter. (3) On facts the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail. H Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (I) The change in language u/s. 437(1) does not affect the true legal position. Under the new Code as well as the old one an accused after being arrested is produced before the Magistrate. There is no provision in the. • ,-,• • GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE (Goswami, J.) 359 'Code whereby an accused is for the first time produce_d after ini~ial arrest 1 ~efb.r~ the Court of Sessions or before the High Court. It. is .not P?SStble to ho . t a the Sessions Judge or the High Court certainly en1oy1ng wide powe~s will. ~e oblivious of the considerat.ions of the .Iikel!hood of fthe 1 .~ccuse[t63 bec~:f> ~] 1 Y ·of an offence punishable with death or 1mpnson ## Text _Characters 0–39,317 of 42,751. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39317 for what follows._ A B c D E F G 358 GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. V. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) December 6, 1977 [P. K. GOSWAMI AND v. D. TuLzAPURKAR, JJ.] Collstitution of India-Art. 136-When Supre1ne Court would interfere with order cuncelling bail by High Court. Crhninal Procedure Code 1973-Sections 437 439 and 497-Bail-Princi~ pies .for grant of-Cancellation of. ' The prosecution is launched against the appellant accused who are ranging. from the Deputy Inspector General of Police to the Police Constables on the ground that they were party to a criminal conspiracy to kill Sunder and caused bis death by drowning him in Yamuna River pursuant to the conspiracy. Sunder was said to be a notorious dacoit who was wanted in several cases of murder and dacoity alleged to have been committed by him in Delhi and elsewhere. It is stated that by May 1976 Sunder became a security risk for Sanjay GandhL The appellants were arrested in connection with the prosecution between 10th June 1977 and 12th July 1977. The Magistrate declined to release them on bail. Thereafter, they approached the Sessions Judge under s. 439(2) of the Cr. P. C. 1973. The Sessions Judge granted bail to ~he 4 appellants. Thereafter the State moved the High Court under s. 439 (2) against the order of the Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail. The Sessions Judge while granting. the bail held that the arguments of the prosecution that if the appellants were relea<:.ed on bail they \vould misuse their freedom to tamper with the witnesses \Vas not quite convincing. The learned Judge further held that there was little to gain by tampering with the witnesses who have themselves already tampered with their evidence by making contradictory statements in respect of the same transaction. The learned Judge also held that there was inordinate delay in registering the case and that there was little probability of the appellants fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses and also having regard to the character of evidence the court was inclined to grant bail to the appellants. The High Court while setting aside the orders of the Sessions Judge observed that considering the nature of the offence, character of the evidence, including the fact that some of the witnesses during preliminary enquiry did not fully support the prosecution case, the reasonable _apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and all other factors relevant for consideration for grant or refusal of bail in a non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life there was no option but to cancel the bail. In an appeal by special leave, the appellants contended ( 1) The old Criminal Procedure Code refers to an accused being "brought before a Court" whereas s. 437(1) of Cr. P. C. 1973 uses the expression "brought before a Court other than the High Court or a Court of Sessions". Therefore, the limitations laid down in s. 497 ( 1) to the effect that "shall not be so relevant if there appears reasonable ground for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life" are not in the way of the High Court or the Court of Sessions in dealing with bail under s. 439 of the Code. (2) Under section 439(2) the High Court could ~ot entertain application for cancellation of bail and it v.ras only the court of sess1ons that was competent_ ll' to deal with the matter. (3) On facts the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail. H Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (I) The change in language u/s. 437(1) does not affect the true legal position. Under the new Code as well as the old one an accused after being arrested is produced before the Magistrate. There is no provision in the. • ,-,• • GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE (Goswami, J.) 359 'Code whereby an accused is for the first time produce_d after ini~ial arrest 1 ~efb.r~ the Court of Sessions or before the High Court. It. is .not P?SStble to ho . t a the Sessions Judge or the High Court certainly en1oy1ng wide powe~s will. ~e oblivious of the considerat.ions of the .Iikel!hood of fthe 1 .~ccuse[t63 bec~:f> ~] 1 Y ·of an offence punishable with death or 1mpnsonnlent or I e. • (2) A Court of Sessions cannot cancel a bail ~vhich ~as already been granted by the High Court unless ne\V circumstances. anse dun~g the progr~ss of the trial after the accused person has been admitted to bail by the HI~ .fo~~t. If, however, a Court of Sessions had admitt~ an accuse~ pers~n to 3:1 e State has t\vo options. It may move the Se_ss1ons Judge if certain news clfcumstances have arisen which were not earlier known !O the State. The tate may as well approach the High Court being the supenor court under s. 439(~) to ·commit the accused to custody. This position follows from the subord1n?te position of the court of Sessions vis-a-vis the High Court. :Under.~· 397 the H~gh Co rt d- the Sessions JudirP }.a.vt; concurrent pow~rs of rev1s1on. However, u an . . und ~nat section has been put m by a person to the High ~he1:.t an ~ppihca1&~. -• .,,, eJudge no further application by the saine person shall b~uenl~~ta?ned e J..;1 'either authority. [364 B-E, FJ F~11apter XXXIII contains provisions in respect of bail and bonds. t<3 !1 436 provides for invariable rule for bail in case of bailable offences Se_cJect to the specified exception under sub-s. (2). Section 437 provides as to When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable·. offences. It makes a distinction between offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life on the one hand and the rest of the offences on the other hand. (364 CJ ( 4) With regard to the first category if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an accused has been so guilty in other non-bailable ·cases judicial discretion will always be exercised by the court in favour of granting bail subject to s. 437(3) with regard to imposition of conditions, if necessary. In case of non-bailable offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life reasons have to be recorded for releasing a person on bail. The only limited enquiry by the Magistrate at that stage relates to the materials for the suspicion. The position would naturally change on investigation progress and more facts and circumstances come to light. The over·riding considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed, the position and the status of the accused with reference to victin1 and the witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, of repeating the offence, of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the cas1;1, of tampering \Vith the witnesses, the history ·of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which in view of so many variable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. [365 A-C. D, 366 F-H, 367 A-H. 36X Al, A B c D E The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, ·[1962] (3) S.C.R., 622, referred to. F (5) Ordinarily, the High Court would not exercise its discretion to interfere with an order of bail granted by the Sessions Judge in favour of the accused. In the present case, the Sessions Judge did not take into proper account the grave apprehension of the prosecution that there ·was likelihood of the appellants tampering with the prosecution witnesses. In the peculiar nature of the case and the position of the appellants in relation to the eye witnesses it was incumbent upon the Sessions Judge to give proper weight to the serious apprehension of the prosecution with regard to the tampering with the eye witnesses. The G manner in which the above plea was disposed of by the Sessions Judge was very casual. The facts and~ circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling baill. The High Court has correctly appreciated the entire position and the Sessions Judge did not at the stage the case was before him. This court would not, therefore, be justified u/ Art. 136 of the Constitution in interfering with the discretion exercised by the l{igh 'Court in cancelling the bail. (368 C-D-H, 370 A-BJ The Court, 'however, directed that the ~fagistrate without loss of further ff 1ime, should pass an appropriate order under s. 209 Cr. P. C. and that Court of Sessions would thereafter commence trial at an early date and examine all the eye witnesses first and such other material witnesses thereafter as may be produced by the prosecution as early as possible and that trial should proceed ' ' ·suPREME COURT.REPORTS '. 360 ' ' [1978] 2 s.c.R> . A : day to day as far as praCticable. The Court also observed that after the state_- - ments of the eye witnesses and the Panch· witness have been_ recorded it would be open to the accused to move the Sesions Judge for admitting them to bail. (370 C-EJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 1977. . B Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19th of September 1977. of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc. ~M). No. 456 of 1977 and · Criminal Appeal No. 457 of l 977 · Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated C 19-9-1977 in the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc. (M) No. 474 . . of J977, · D A. N.-Muila, D. C. Mathur, S. K. Ga'mbhir, Miss··n. Ram· krithiani and Miss Manju Jatley for the Appellants in Cr. A.456/77. D. Mook;rtee, D. C. Mathur; S. K. Gambhir, Miss ·n. Ram· krikhiani, Miss Manju Jelley for the Appellants in Cr!. A. 457 /77. Soli J. Sorabjee, Addi, Solicitor General and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent in both the appeals. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J.· These two appeals by Special Leave are directed against the judgment and order of the . Delhi High . Court cancelling E · the orders of bail of each of the appellants passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi. . They were all arrested in pursuance of the First Information Report lodged by the · Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on 10-6· 77 in what is now described as the "Sunder Murder Case". . The report at that stage did not disclose names oi accused · persons. and referred to the involvement of "some Delhi Police Personnel". · Sunder was said to be a notorious ditcoit who was wanted F in several case> of murder and dacoity alleged to have been commit- · ted by him in Delhi and elsewhere. It is stated that by May, 1976 Sunder became a "security risk for Mr. Sanjay Gandhi". It appears . Sunder was arrested at Jaipur on 31-8-1976 and wa. in police cus-· tody in Delhi between 2nd of November 1976 and 26t!). of November 1976 under the orders of the Court of the Additional Chief MetroG H politan l\fagistrate, Shahdara, Delhi. It is alleged that the appellants ranging from the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police at the top down to some police constables were a party to a ~'riminal conspiracy to kill Sunder and caused his .death by drowning him in the Yamuna . in pursuance· of the conspiracy. According to the prosecution, the alleged murder \ook place on the night of 24th of Novemb~r 1976. The appel!ants were arrested in connection with the above case between June 10, 1977 and July 12, 1977 and the Magistrate declined to release them on bail. Thereafter, they approached the learned· t • •• • GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE (Goswami, J.) 361 Sessions Judge under Section 439(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 A (briefly the new Code) and secured r'~lease on bail of the four appellants, namely, Gurcharan Singh (Supdt. of Police), P. S. Bhinder !D.I.G. of Police), Amarjit Singh (Inspector) and Constable Paras Ram on 1st August 1977 and of the eight other pclice personnel on 1 l th August 1977. Charge sheet was submitted on 9th August 1977 against 13 B accused including all the appellants under Section 120-B read with S€ction 302, I.P .C. end under other Sections. The 13th accused wllo was also a policeman has been evading arrest. The Delhi Adruinistration moved the High Court under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. against the orders of the learned Sessions J1idge for cancellation of the bail. On September 19, 1977 the High Court set C a~icle the orders of the Sessions Judge dated 1-8-1977 and 11-8-1977 and the bail bond!; furnished by the appellants were cancelled and ~hey were ordered to be taken into custody forthwith. Hence these appeals by Special Leave which were argued together and will be disposed of by this judgment. In order to appreciate the submissions, on behalf of the a ppellants, of Mr. Mulla f.Qllowed by Mr. Mukherjee it will be appropriafe to briefly advert to certain relevant facts. On the allegations, this is principally a case of criminal conspiracy to murder a person in police custody be be a bandit. The police personnel from tho Deputy Inspector General of Police to police Constables are said to be involved as ,accused. Before the F.I.R. was lodged on 10th June 1977, there had been a preliminary inquiry conducted by the C.B.I. between 6th oi April 1977 and 9th of June 1977 bearing upon the death of Sunder. Fifty three· witnesses were examined in that inquiry and six of them were said to be eye witnesses. Those eye witnessess were all police personnel. During this preliminary inquiry, all the six alleged eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case, but gave statements in favour of the accused. However, as staled earlier, the F.I.R. was lodged on 10th of June 1977 and investigation proceeded in which statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The appellants were also arrested and suspended during the period between 10th of June 1977 and 12th of July 1977. During the course of the investigation, seven witnesses including six persons already examined during the preliminary inquiry, gave statements implicaJirig the appellants in support of the theory of prosecution. The witnesses were also forwarded to the Magistrate for recording their statemenfs under Section 164, Cr. P.C. .All the seven witnesses, it is stated, continued to support the prosecution case in their statements on oath recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. Six eye witnesses who made such discrepant statements and bad supported the defence version at one .stage, explained that some the accused, namely, D.S.P. R. K. Sharma and Inspector Harkesh had exercised pressure on them to · D E F G H A B c D E F G H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 2 S.C.R. make such statements in favour of the defence. The seventh eye witness AS.I. Gopal Das, who had not been examined earlier, made statements under Section 164, Cr. P.C. in favour of the prosecution. It is in the above background that the Delhi Administration moved the High Court for cancellation of the bail granted by the Sessions Judge alleging that there was grave apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with by the accused persons on account of their position and influence which they wielded over the witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge adverting to this aspect had, while granting bail, observed as follows :- ''The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that if released on bail, the petitioner will misuse their freedom to tamper with the witnesses is not quite convincing. After all, there is little to gain by tampering with the witnesses who have, themselves, already tampered with their evidence b) making contradictory statements in respect of the same transaction." · The learned Sessions Judge ended his long discussion as follows:- "To sum up, after reviewing the entire material including the inquest proceedings held l;iy the Sub-Divisional Magistrate statements recorded by the CBI during the preliminary enquiry and under section 161, Cr. P.C. and the statements recorded under section 164, Cr. P.C. and having regard to the inordinate delay in registering this case and to the circumstances that there is little probability of the petitioners flying from justice or tampering with the witnesses, and also having regard to the character of evidence, J am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners." The High Court, on the other hand, set aside the orders of th0 Sessions Judge observing as follows :- "Considering the nature of the offence. character of the evidence including the fact that some of. the witnesses during preliminary inquiry did not fully support the prosecution case; the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and all other factors relevant for consideration. while considering the application for grant or refusal of bail in a non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, J have no option but to cancel t11e bail. I am of the considered view that the Learned Sessions J wlge did not exercise his judicial discretion on relevant well recognised principles and factors which ought to have been considered by him." Section 437 of the new Code corresponds to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (brietly the old Code) and Section 4-19 of the new Code corresponds to Section 498 of the old Code. Since there is no direct authority of this Court with regard to GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE (Goswami, J.) 363 ·section 439, Cr. P.C. of the new Code, Counsel for both sides drew ·Our attention to various decisions of the High Courts under Section 498, Cr. P.C. of the old Code. Mr. Mulla drew out particular attention to some change in the language of Section 437(1), Cr. P. C. (new Code) compared with Section 497 (l) of the old Code. Mr. Mulla points out that while Section 497(1), Cr. P.C. of the old Code, in terms, refers to an accused being "brought before a court", Section 437(1), Cr. P.C. uses the expression "brought before a court other thau the High Conrt or a Court of Session". From this, Mr. Mulla submits that limitations with regard to the granting of bail laid down under Section 497 ( 1) to the effect that the accused "shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisomnent for life" are not in the way of the. High Court or the Court of Session in dealing with bail under Section 439 of the new Code. It is, however, difficult to appreciate how the change in ·the language under Section 437 ( 1) affects the true legal position. Under the new as well as the old Code an accused after being arrested is produced before the Court of a Magistrate. There is no provision in the Code whereby the accused is for the first time produced after initial arrest before the Court of Session or before the High Court. Section 437 (1), Cr. P.C., therefore, takes care of the situation arising out of an accused being arrested by the police and produced before a Magistrate. What has been the rule of production of accused person after arrest by the police under the old' Code has been made explicitly clear in Section 437(1) of the new Code by excluding the High Court or the Court of Session. From the above change of language it is difficult to reach a conclusion that the Sessions Judge or the High Court need not even hear in mind the guidelines which the Magistrate has necessarily to follow in considering bail of an accused. It is not possible to hold that the Sessions Judge or the High Court, certainly enjoyin_g wide powers, will be oblivious of the considerations of the likelihood of the accused being guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Since the Sessions Judge or the High Court will be approached by an accused only after refusal of bail by the Magistrate. it is not possible to hold that the mandate of the law of bail under Section 437, Cr. P.C: for the Magistrate will be ignored by the High Court or by the Sessions Judge. A B c D E F It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that u/s 439(2) Cr. P.C. of G the new Code, the High Court could not entertain the application for cancellation of bail and it was only the Court of Session that was competent to deul with the matter. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under Sec. 498 Cr. P.C. of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate refuses to grant bail to an accused person, the High Court or the Court of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly under Section 439(2) of the new Code. the High Court or H A B c D E F G H 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978) 2 S.C.R. the Court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody. In the old Code, Section 498(2) was worded in somewhat different language when it ""'d that a High Court or Court of Session may cansc any person who has been admitted to bail under sub-section ( l) to be arrested and may commit him fo custody. In other words, under Section 498(2) of the @Id Code, a person who had been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him to custody. This rfslriction upon the power of entertainment of an application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code under Section 439(2). Under Section 439(2) of the new Code a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXllI by any Court including the Court ol Session to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so. It must, llowe>·er, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which hon accused of nonbailable offence and before the judgment is delivered. the court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in ,custody, on the execution of him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear the judgment. 'I'he principle underlying s. 437 is, therefoi;c, towards granting of bail except in cases where there appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has been gu'lty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and also when there are other valid reasons to justify the rciusal of bail. Section 437 Cr. P. C. is concerned only with the court of Magistrate. It expressly excludes the High Court and the court of ,,esslon. The language of s. 437(1) may be contrasted withs. 437(7) to which we have already made a reference. While under sub-sec. ( 1 J of s. 43 7 Cr. P. C. the words are : "If there appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty". Sub-s. (7) says : "that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence". This difference in language occurs on account of the stage at which the two sub--scctions operate. During the initial investigation of a case in order to confine a person in detcnti_on, there should 011ly appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Whereas after submission of charge-sheet or during trial for such an offence the court has an opportunity to form somewhat clear opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence. At that stage the degree of certainty of opinion in that beha.Jf is more after the trial is over and judgment is defered than at a pre-trial stage even after the chargeshcet. There is a noticeable trend in the above provisions of law that even in case of such non-bailable offences a person need not be detained in custody for any period more than it is absolutely necessary, if there arc no reasonable grounds for believing that he i, guilty of such an nffence. There will be, however, certain over-riding considerations to which we shall refer hereafter. Whenever a person is arrested by the police for such an offence, there should be materials produced before the court to come to a conclusion as to the nature of the case he is involved in or he is suspected of. If at that stage from the materials available there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the person has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for 1ife, the court has no other option than to commit him to custody. At that stage, the court is concerned with the existence of the materials against the accused and not as to whether those materials are credible or not on the merits. In other non-bailable cases the court w;ll exercise the judicial discretion in favour of granting bail subject to subs. 3· of·'· 437 Cr. P.C. if it deems nece~sary to act under it. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the court which may defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is also clear that when an accused is brought GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE (Goswami, J.) 367 before the court of a Magistrate with the allegation against him of. an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he has ordinarily no option in the matter but to refuse bail subject, however, to the first proviso to s. 437(1) Cr. P. C. and in a case where the Magistrate entertains a reasonable lielief on the materials that the accused has not been guilty of such an offence. This will, hqwever, be ai1 extra ordinary occasion since there will be some materials at the stage of initial arrest, for the accusation or for strong suspicion of commission by the person of such an offence. By on amendment in 1955 in sec. 497 Cr. P.C. of the old Code the words "or suspected of the co=ission of" were for the first time introduced. These words were continued in the new Code in s. 437(1) Cr. l'.C. It is difficult to conceive how if a police officer arrests a person on a reasonable suspicion of commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life (S. 41 Cr. P.C. uf the new Code) and forwards him to a Magistrate (S. 167(1) Cr. P.C. of the new Code) the Magistrate at that stage will have reasons to hold that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he has not been guilty of such an offence. At that stage unless the Magistrate is able to act under the proviso to s. 437(1) Cr. P.C. bail appears to be out of the question. The only limited inquiry may then relate to the materials for the suspicion. The position will naturally change as investigation progresses and more facts and circumstances come to light. Section 439(1), Cr. P.C. of the new Code, on the other hand, confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in respect of bail. Unlike u/s. 437(1) there is no ban imposed u/s. 439(1), Cr. P.C. against granting of bail by the High Court or the Court of Session to persons .accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is, however, legitimate to suppose diat the High Court or the Court of Session will be approached by an accused only after he has failed before the Magistrate and after the investigation has progressed throwing light on the evidence and circumstances implicating the accused. Even so, the High Court or \ho Court of Session will have to exercise its jndicial discretion in considering the question of granting of bail u/s 439(1), Cr. P. C. of the new Code. The over-riding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common bote in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1 ), Cr. P.C. of the new Code are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed, the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused fteeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life be_iiig faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which in view of so many variable (actors, cannot be exhaustively set out. ' The question of cancellation of bail u/s. 439(2), Cr. P. C. of the new Code is certainly different from admission to bail u/s. 439(1), Cr. P. C. The decisions of the various High Courts cited before us c .B .D E :F ·G 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l 1978) 2 S.C.R. are mainly with regard to the admission to bail by the High Court under section 498, Cr. P.C. (old). Power of the High Court or of the Sessions Judge to admit persons to bail under section 498, Cr. P.C. (old) was always held to be wide without any express limitations in law. In considering the question of bail justice to both sides governs the judicious exercise of tbe court's judicial discretion. The only authority cited before us where tbis Court cancelled bail granted by the High Court is that of The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh( 'l. The Captain was prosecuted along with others for conspiracy and also under section 3 and 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 for passing on official secrets to a foreign agency. This Court found a basic error in the order of tbe High Court in treating the case as falliug under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act which is a bailable offence when the High Court ought to have proceeded on the assumption that it was under section 3 of that Act which is a non-bailable offence. It is because of this basic error into which the High Court fell that tbis Court interfered with the order of bail granted by the High Court. In the present ca~e the Sessions J udgc having admitted tfte appellants to bail by recording his reasons we will have to see whether that order was vitiated by any serious infirmity for which it was right and proper for the High Court, in the interest of justice, to interfere with his discretion in granting the bail. Ordinarily the High Court will not exercise its discretion to interfere with an order of bail granted by the Sessions Judge in favour of an accused. We have set out above tbe material portions of the order of the Sessions Judge from which it is seen that he did not take intc proper account the grave apprehension of the prosecution that there was a likelihood of the appellants tampering with the prosecution witnesses. In tbe peculiar nature of the case revealed from tbe allegations arid the position of the appellants in relation to the eye witnesses it was incumbent upon the Sessions Judge to give proper weight to the serions apprehension of tbe prosecution with regard to tampering witb the eye witnesses, which was urged before him in resisting tbe application for bail. The matter would have been different if there was absolutely no basis for tbe apprehension of the prosecution with regard to tampering of the witnesses and the allegation rested only on a bald statement. The manner in which the above plea was disposed of by tbe Sessions Judge was very casual and even the language in the order is not clear enough to indicate what he meant by observing that "the witnesses. . . . . . . . themselves already tampered with their evidence by making contradictory statements ............ ". The learned Sessions Judge was not alive to the legal position that there was no substantive .evidence yet recorded against the accused until the eye witnesses were examined in the trial which was tc proceed unimpeded by any vicious probability. The witnesses stated on oath u/s. 164. Cr. P.C. that they had made the earlier statements due to pressurisation by some of the appellants. Where the truth lies (I) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 622. I GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE (Goswami, !.) 3 69 will be detenuine