State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) 2 SCC 411

1. Should the respondent’s bail be cancelled because of alleged attempts to tamper with witnesses?
2. What burden and standard of proof apply when the prosecution seeks cancellation of bail?

• Cancellation vs. Rejection: Cancelling bail already granted needs supervening facts showing that continued liberty may harm a fair trial.
• Standard of Proof: The prosecution can succeed on a preponderance of probabilities (not beyond reasonable doubt).
• Court’s Power: Court may tailor relief (e.g., temporary custody) to protect witness examination and avoid undue hardship.

• CBI prosecuted Sanjay Gandhi (Accused No. 2) before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
• Alleged conspiracy to seize and destroy the film “Kissa Kursi Ka” to stop its exhibition.
• Censor Board declined certification; producer Amrit Nahata approached the Supreme Court for mandamus.
• After the Emergency ended, a raid at Maruti Limited (where the respondent was MD) showed the spools were burnt at the factory.
• CBI filed a chargesheet citing 138 witnesses.
• Prosecution alleged attempts to reach and suborn witnesses during investigation.
• Delhi Administration sought cancellation of bail in the High Court; application was dismissed on 11 Apr 1978.
• Appeal by special leave filed in the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order.

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the High Court’s refusal to cancel bail, finding that the materials—such as complaints by approvers and affidavits of witnesses—showed credible attempts to tamper with witnesses.

To prevent hardship and keep the trial moving fairly, the Court ordered a limited cancellation: the respondent would be taken into custody for one month so that the prosecution could examine the Maruti witnesses. After this period, the respondent could seek fresh bail.

• Cancellation of bail needs supervening circumstances that show continued liberty may obstruct a fair trial.
• The prosecution can establish tampering on a balance of probabilities.
• Relief can be calibrated (e.g., short custody) to protect witness examination and reduce undue hardship.

This case is frequently cited on bail cancellation and witness safety. It clarifies that courts will step in to protect the process when there are credible signs of interference. It balances liberty with the community’s interest in a fair trial.

• Bail cancellation ≠ initial rejection; it needs new facts after grant.
• Standard is civil: preponderance, not beyond doubt.
• Targeted orders (short custody) can protect witness examination.

Mnemonic: “Tamper? Temper Bail.”

1. Tamper shown on probabilities.
2. Temper liberty to protect fairness.
3. Timed custody to record witnesses.

Issue: Whether bail should be cancelled due to alleged witness tampering.

Rule: Cancellation requires supervening facts showing risk to a fair trial; proof on preponderance is enough.

Application: Complaints and affidavits from approvers and witnesses indicated efforts to suborn them; continued liberty risked fairness.

Conclusion: Limited cancellation for one month to secure witness examination; fresh bail thereafter.

Cancellation of Bail

Ending bail already granted because of later conduct that threatens a fair trial.

Preponderance of Probabilities

The civil standard—more likely than not.

Witness Tampering

Trying to influence, threaten, or bribe a witness.

Approver

An accused who turns witness for the prosecution.