Introduction 

The present case deals with an application filed by the prosecution seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Sanjay Gandhi, on the grounds that he has attempted to tamper with the prosecution witnesses, thereby interfering with the course of justice 

Facts 

• The respondent, Sanjay Gandhi, is accused no. 2 in a prosecution instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. 
• The case involves the alleged conspiracy to take possession of a film called "Kissa Kursi Ka" and destroy it to prevent its public exhibition. 
• The film was produced by Shri Amrit Nahata and portrayed the political doings of the respondent and his mother, Smt. Indira Gandhi, the former Prime Minister of India. 
• The Board of Censors declined to grant a certificate for exhibition of the film, and Shri Nahata filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus. 
• To prevent the film from being publicly exhibited, the respondent and his co-accused Shri Vidya Charan Shukla, who was the Minister for Information and Broadcasting, conspired to take possession of the film and destroy it. 
• After the emergency was lifted and the Janata Government came into power, a raid was conducted on the premises of Maruti Limited, the company of which the respondent was the Managing Director. The raid revealed that the film spools were burnt and destroyed at the factory premises. 
• The CBI filed a chargesheet against the respondent and others, citing 138 witnesses. 
• The Delhi Administration filed an application in the High Court of Delhi for the cancellation of the respondent's bail. 
• During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the respondent attempted to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 
• The High Court dismissed the application for cancellation of bail on 11th April 1978. 
• The Delhi Administration then filed an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court against the High Court's order. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the respondent's bail should be cancelled based on the prosecution's allegations of witness tampering? 
• What is the nature of the burden on the prosecution in an application for cancellation of bail, and what is the appropriate standard of proof? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court observed that the rejection of bail when bail is applied for is different from the cancellation of bail already granted, and the latter can be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. 
• The Court held that the prosecution could establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses. 
• The Court found that the evidence, including the complaints of the approvers, the affidavits of witnesses, and the complaints of other witnesses, furnished satisfactory proof that the respondent had attempted to suborn the prosecution witnesses. 
• The Court, however, noted the need to avoid undue hardship or harassment and decided to limit the cancellation of the respondent's bail to a period of one month, during which the prosecution would examine the Maruti witnesses. 
• The Court allowed the appeal partially, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed the respondent to be taken into custody for a period of one month, after which he would be entitled to be released on fresh bail. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court cancelled the respondent’s bail and directed them to be taken into custody.