State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978)

State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) Case Summary

This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary, a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com.

Facts

1. The present appeal for the cancellation of bail was raised after the two approvers turned hostile and resiled from their earlier statements.
2. Earlier the respondent was granted anticipatory bail on charges made by the CBI under S.120B read with S.409, S.435, and S.201 of the IPC. 
3. It was alleged that the respondent along with other officials and Minister for Information and Broadcasting, V.C. Shukla, had burnt and destroyed the film "Kissa Kursi Ka" in a factory premises of Maruti Ltd, which had to be screened before the Judges of the Supreme Court to decide whether the censor board had rightly refused to grant certificate for exhibition or not.

Issue

1. Whether the High Court was right in rejecting the application for cancellation of bail.

Ratio Decidendi

1. The Court said rejection of bail and cancellation of bail is different, it is easier to reject a bail application than to cancel a bail granted.
2. The fact that the witness has turned hostile needs to show a reasonable involvement of the respondent. A  witness may resile on his own volition out of love and affection being a relative to the accused or out of a sense of gratitude for being an employee.
3. The prosecution has to prove that the accused had attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses.
4. The prosecution doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the witnesses had resiled because the accused had won over the witnesses. 
5. To get a cancellation of the bail order, the prosecution has to show-
1. The preponderance of probabilities that the accused had attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses.
2. There exists a reasonable apprehension that the accused will interfere with the course of justice.
6. In the Gurucharan Singh v. State, 1978: the Court observed that while cancelling a bail order, the Court shall consider that- 
1. There exists a prima facie case, and
2. There is a likelihood of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
7. The prosecution has established a primary facie case that the respondent has tampered with the prosecution witnesses as
1. Both the witnesses have complained to the CBI that the respondent contacted him.
2. One of the appellants admitted that he had made a written complaint.
3. Satpal Singh saw the respondent and one of the witnesses together.
4. Sarup Singh saw the respondent coming to the factory and heard him assuring Yadav not to worry.

Decisions

1. The respondent had abused his liberty and tampered with the prosecution witnesses.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. The Court set aside the order of the High Court and canceled the bail for one month.