AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present petition has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2/Sudarshan Sonar â€" Principal of DPS School, Indore.
The petitioners before this Court are the parents of those children, who met with an unfortunate accident and expired on 05.01.2018.
Facts of the case reveal that an unfortunate incident took place in township of Indore on 05.01.2018 when a bus met with an accident while
transporting the children from their houses to Delhi Public School School at Bombay Agra bye-pass. A criminal case was registered on 06.01.2018
under Section 304A of IPC against the transport manager of DPS â€" Chaitanya Kumawat as well as other persons. The Principal of the school
namely Sudarshan Sonar was also arrested by the police on 12.02.2018 and this Court has granted him bail on 20.02.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that an inquiry was conducted by one Ruchika Chouhan, IAS (Additional Collector)
and she noticed several lapses in respect of the bus and in respect of the management of the transport facility of DPS school. He has further argued
before this Court that the Principal was responsible in the matter as, it was his duty to ensure that the buses are having proper fitness certificate and
they are fitted with proper governors etc.. He has also argued that a tender was invited by DPS school for transporting the children on 08.05.2017 and
there was a condition that the buses upto 2012 will be permitted to ply, however, to give undue advantage, the condition of the year 2012 was deleted
and contract was awarded to Emerald Ministration Pvt. Ltd.. He has also stated that the buses were in the ownership of the school and it was the
duty of the Principal to look after the buses and the Principal is certainly liable in respect of the crime in question and the bail granted by this Court
deserves to be quashed.
It has been further stated that before the trial court, the parents of the deceased children have opposed the bail application filed by the Principal,
however, without hearing the present applicants, the bail has been granted by this Court. It has also been stated that the parents of the children were
not aware of the said bail application and could not file any objection.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned government advocate.
In the present case, it is true that a very very unfortunate accident has taken place on 05.01.2018 resulting in death of five minor children along with
the driver. It is very sad incident in which the parents have lost their near ones and dear ones of tender age and the loss caused to the parents can
never be meted out in any manner but at the same, this Court has to see whether the bail granted by this Court has to be cancelled in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case or not.
So far as the first argument of the petitioner is concerned that the parents were not heard while granting bail, in the considered opinion of this Court,
as there was no objection by any of the parents when the matter was heard, the question of hearing the parents while deciding the bail does not arise.
So far as the involvement of the principal is concerned, merely because his name finds place in the report submitted by Ruchika Chouhan, it does not
mean that he has committed crime in question. Not only this, the principal of the school was arrested later on i.e. on 12.02.2018 and he was in jail upto
20.02.2018 and no police officer went to the jail for any kind of investigation or to seek any information from the principal while he was in custody.
It is true that Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. empowers to cancel the bail but, there should be some cogent reason for cancellation of the bail granted in
the matter.
Learned government advocate was fair enough to inform this Court that there was no action of any kind to temper with the evidence on the part of
the principal so far as evidence is concerned. It has been further argued that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he is interfering with the
investigation.
The Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar pradesh and another (Cr.A. No.227/2018) has dealt with the issue of grant of bail
and this Court vide order dated 06.02.2018 passed in Cr.A. No.227/2018, after taking care of the judgment, has granted bail to the Principal of
school in question. The respondent No.2 before this Court is a principal of school of repute i.e. Delhi Public School and there is no allegation against
him whatsoever of any kind. In respect of allegation, the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning
thereby, a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
Earlier also, similar application was preferred for cancellation of bail and the same was registered as M.Cr.C. No.7985/18 and this Court on
26.02.2018 has dismissed the application. This is the second application for cancellation of bail.
The present petition has been filed for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned counsel for the
applicant has argued before this Court that there is a strong resentment on account of the accident in the township and certain children are taking
treatment in Bombay Hospital, on account of the accident which has taken place on 05/01/2018 resulting in death of four innocent children as well as
the driver of the bus.
He has also argued that earlier a compliant was lodged in respect of the maintenance of the bus but nothing was done by the School. He has also
argued that no safety features are available in the buses which are transporting the children and as the investigation is going on, there is every
possibility of the respondent interfering with the investigation. It has also been stated that a Public Interest Litigation writ petition has been filed on
account of accident which has taken place.
Inspector Rajendra Soni is present in person. He has fairly stated before this Court that Mr. Sudarshan Sonar, Principal of Delhi Public School was in
Jail from 12/02/2018 to 20/02/2018 and no Police Officer had been to Jail for doing any kind of investigation. It was also stated that prima facie the
police does not want cancellation of bail.
Bail cancellation application u/S. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of one Suraj Upadhyay who is claiming
himself to be a social worker.
It is true that the Court of Sessions or the High Court is empowered to cancel the bail. The grant of bail or denial of bail is the exclusive discretion of
the Judge considering the case, as held by the apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (CR.A.No.
227/2018). For cancellation of bail it has to be seen whether there is an interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of
justice by the accused; evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice by the accused; the accused has abused to the liberty granted to him by the
Court; the accused misused the liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity; the accused interferes with the course of the investigation; the accused
attempts to tamper with the evidence or the witnesses or the accused threatens the witnesses or indulges in similar activities.
The Police Authority present in the Court has very fairly stated that Mr. Sudarshan Sonar, Principal of Delhi Public School has not committed any
of the aforesaid acts.
Mr. Kamal Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent â€" State has also fairly stated that he also does not want the bail to be cancelled as there is no
material on record warranting cancellation of bail.
The apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508 has dealt with the issue of
cancellation of bail. Paragraph 9 to 12 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
In this context, a fruitful reference be made to the pronouncement in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh[1], wherein this Court has
observed that grant of bail though discretionary in nature, yet such exercise cannot be arbitrary, capricious and injudicious, for the heinous nature of
the crime warrants more caution and there is greater change of rejection of bail, though, however dependant on the factual matrix of the matter. In the
said decision, reference was made to Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi[2] and the Court opined thus:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails
a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses beingtampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh
with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidenceestablishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a
prima facie satisfaction
of the court in support of the charge. [pic]
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and
it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
In Chaman Lal V. State of U.P.[3], the Court has laid down certain factors, namely, the nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the character of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant, and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge which are to be kept in mind.
In this context, we may profitably refer to the dictum in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee[4], wherein it has been held that normally this
Court does not interfere with the order passed by the High Court when a bail application is allowed or declined, but the High Court has a duty to
exercise its discretion cautiously and strictly. Regard being had to the basic principles laid down by this Court from time to time, the Court enumerated
number of considerations and some of the considerations which are relevant for the present purpose are; whether there is likelihood of the offence
being repeated and whether there is danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
We have referred to certain principles to be kept in mind while granting bail, as has been laid down by this Court from time to time. It is well
settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances
warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and
perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not
been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such
a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the
violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the
justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court. 16. The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order
passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a
human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In
fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have
fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value
on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his
mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the
liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an
individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that
extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the
citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social
stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society
disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an
order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law.
In the light of the aforesaid, as no evidence has been brought to the notice of this Court that the accused has interfered with the process of
investigation and there is no likelihood of the offence being repeated or there is danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail, especially in the light
of the statement made by the Police Officer before this Court, the question of cancellation of bail does not arise.
The apex Court in the case of Puran Vs. Rambilas and another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 in paragraph 10 has held as under :
Mr. Lalit next submitted that once bail has been granted it should not be cancelled unless there is evidence that the conditions of bail are being
infringed. In support of this submission he relies upon the authority in the case of Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in 1995 (1) S.C.C.
In this case it has been held that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted have to be
considered and dealt with on different basis. It has been held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing
the cancellation of the bail already granted. It has been held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or
attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession
granted to the accused in any manner. It is, however, to be noted that this Court has clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not
exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed
in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would
also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very
serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial court has to be corrected.
In the light of the aforesaid, as there is no attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due
course of justice or an abuse of concession granted to the accused in any manner, the question of grant of bail does not arise.
The apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad reported in (2017) 2 SCC 178, in paragraph 15 has held as under :
We may also, at this stage, refer to the judgment in the case of Puran v. Rambilas & Anr.[5], wherein principles while dealing with application for
bail as well as petition for cancellation of bail were delineated and elaborated. Insofar as entertainment of application for bail is concerned, the Court
pointed out that reasons must be recorded while granting the bail, but without discussion of merits and demerits of evidence. It was clarified that
discussing evidence is totally different from giving reasons for a decision. This Court also pointed out that where order granting bail was passed by
ignoring material evidence on record and without giving reasons, it would be perverse and contrary to the principles of law. Such an order would itself
provide a ground for moving an application for cancellation of bail. This ground for cancellation, the Court held, is different from the ground that the
accused misconducted himself or some new facts call for cancellation.
In the light of the aforesaid, as this Court has assigned reasons for granting the bail and the petitioner has not committed any act thereafter warranting
cancellation of bail, there is no application on behalf of any witness for cancellation of bail, the question of cancelling the bail does not arise.
Learned counsel for the objector has argued before this Court that the newspaper are flooded with the shocking accident which resulted into loss of
five lives and lot of material has been published in the newspapers about the death of innocent children. This Court is of the considered opinion that the
bail orders are not passed on the basis of newspaper reports nor on the basis of media trial, the bail orders are passed based upon the material made
available by the prosecution in the case diary.
This court keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering various judgments of the apex Court and the
evidence available in the case diary and also keeping in view the categoric stand of the State Government that they do not want the bail to be
cancelled, is of the opinion that the present petition for cancellation of bail deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly hereby dismissed.â€
Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case is of the opinion that no case for cancellation of bail is made out in the matter.
Present petition is also dismissed.