Anoop Kumar Dhand, J
1. The instant application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur vide order dated 19.01.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to lodging of the instant FIR, one more FIR was registered by one Sunil Kumar, nephew of the petitioner, against the accused-respondent wherein the respondent has been alleged to have abused and beaten Sunil and his family members. Learned counsel submits that as per the instant FIR, the accused-respondent has caused certain injuries on the legs of the victim, namely Sunil, and looking to the gravity of the matter, bail should not have been granted to the accused-respondent by the learned Trial Judge. Learned counsel submits that the accused-respondent is a habitual offender against whom eight criminal cases are pending. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, bail granted to the accused-respondent be cancelled.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after appreciating the evidence available on the record, indulgence of bail was granted to the respondent. Learned counsel submits that mere pendency of criminal cases is not a ground for cancellation of bail. Learned counsel submits that a cogent and reasoned order has been passed by the learned Trial Judge while exercising its jurisdiction of granting bail to the accused-respondent, hence under these circumstances, interference of this court is not warranted.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Trial Judge has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the evidence available on the record and, accordingly, granted bail to the accused-respondent. Allegation of causing injury on the legs of the victim made against the accused-respondent and that the accused-respondent was a habitual offender against whom eight criminal cases were registered cannot be the grounds for cancellation of bail. These grounds could have been raised and entertained before the Trial Court while granting or rejecting the bail to the accused-respondent but not before this Court under proceedings for cancellation of bail, as the grounds for allowing the bail application and for cancellation of bail application are altogether different.
6. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to mention the relevant parameters for granting of bail and considerations for setting aside the bail orders.
RELEVANT PARAMETERS FOR GRANTING BAIL
7. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.
8. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact of the order on the society. In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2022 (15) SCR 211, decided by a three judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. in the following words:
“24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [ Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995)1 SCC 349. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.”
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SETTING ASIDE BAIL ORDERS
9. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused.
10. In Jagjeet Singh vs. Ashish Mishra reported in 2022 (9) SCC 321, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail.
11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram & Others Versus State of Haryana, reported in 1995(1) SCC 349, has held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it in-conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. It has been held in Para 4 as under:-
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and delay with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking the grounds of cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) 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. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.”
8. Similarly in the case of Narendra K. Amin Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 584, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for cancellation of bail against the accused-respondent. No allegation has been levelled against the accused-respondent that he misused the liberty of bail granted to him or the Court was mislead by incorrect facts.
10. This Court finds no merit and substance in this bail cancellation application. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
