Cancellation of Bail

As per FIR, the respondents were accused of forcibly disrobing the victim in the basement of a school and taking explicit photographs of her and subsequently threatening to disseminate her photographs on social media

Prima facie, the allegations were of an exceptionally grave and heinous nature and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the respondents had committed the alleged offences against the victim

All the accused had been specifically named in the FIR, assigning distinct and specific roles to each thereby establishing their active involvement in the offence

Based on the facts and evidence presented, it could reasonably be inferred that accused-respondent had committed an offence punishable by death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of up to ten years

In such cases, the provisions of S.497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code were unequivocally applicable, precluding the grant of bail

Consequently, the benefit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C, could not be extended in this case, as there was no ambiguity regarding the role of the accused

In the present case, the matter did not fall within the ambit of further inquiry as per S.497(2), Cr.P.C

Thus, both the High Court and the Trial Court had committed a grave illegality in granting extraordinary concession of bail before arrest to the accused-respondents

Consequently, the orders granting bail were recalled and the judgments of the lower Courts were set aside

Application for cancellation of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he beat the complainant with fists and kicks, as a result whereof he got hit on his nose

Perusal of the impugned order of the Court below revealed that the grounds made basis for the confirmation of the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the respondent/accused was nothing more but deeper appreciation of the record which was unwarranted at the bail stage

Court below had held the case of accused as one of further inquiry and even did not touch the basic ingredient of mala fide or ulterior motives for false implication of the accused, which was a sine qua non for confirmation of pre-arrest bail

Pre-arrest bail being an extra-ordinary relief can only be extended in the cases where an accused does not prima-facie appear to have committed a non-bailable offence, particularly when only oral allegations are levelled in the FIR

Thus, the Court below fell into error while passing the impugned order, which called for the interference of the High Court

No mala fide was apparent on the record regarding false implication of the accused in the instant case, as such, the very ingredient for the confirmation of pre-arrest was lacking

Resultantly, pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was recalled.

Principles for cancellation of bail were quite different, and once the Trial Court granted bail to the accused by exercising well-reasoned discretion, then the scope for interference under appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was very limited and restricted

Grant of bail was nothing but shifting of the custody of the accused in the hands of surety to secure his attendance during trial

Grant of bail during pendency of trial was not a vested and qualified right of the accused, such a concession could be withdrawn when misused

Court would not hesitate to exercise its discretion to cancel bail, if it was established on record that the accused, after securing bail, was involved in a mischief that undermined the administration of justice, attempted to influence or intimidate witnesses, tampered with evidence, repeated the offence while on bail, or violated the conditions imposed by the Court, failed to appear before the Court without just cause, or if new facts come to light that controvert the facts on which bail was granted; the Court may in such a situation revoked the concession of bail

Court may interfere and cancel the bail when it transpires that bail granting order was perverse on the face of it, or the bail was granted in clear disregard and contravention to the settled proposition of law, or the bail was granted against the weight of material available on record, or the Court while granting bail entered into a deeper analysis of material available which prejudiced the case of either side, or the bail granting order was capricious, whimsical or arbitrary in nature and was based upon some erroneous conclusions

In the present case, no illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned orders to attract any of the grounds for cancellation of bail

Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in limine.

Cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, theft by a servant or clerk from their master's property, common intention

Cancellation of bail

Principles

Accused-petitioner was charged that after his termination by the respondent from his office, he stole letterhead pad, stamps, original card and file of respondent's car and prepared some forged documents on his letterhead pad and transferred the ownership of car by using forged documents

Accused-petitioner was granted bail which was recalled by the Appellate Court

Validity

Perusal of the record revealed that FIR was registered under Ss. 420, 468, 471, 381, and 34, P.P.C against petitioner and co-accused

Co-accused of the petitioner was granted post arrest bail on 16.02.2024

Subsequently, the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail

On 09.10.2024, respondent No.l filed a petition under S.497(5), Cr.P.C, seeking cancellation of bail

Notably, that was the first instance where respondent No.2 introduced S.467, P.P.C in his petition

However, the case record clearly indicated that at the time of the bail granting order, the attendance of counsel for the parties, State Counsel and the Investigating Officer was duly marked before Judicial Magistrate

Despite that, neither counsel for respondent No.2, State Counsel or the Investigating Officer disclosed the inclusion of S.467, P.P.C in the FIR

Said omission raised serious concern regarding malafide intent on the part of the prosecution

Evidently, State did not file an application seeking cancellation of bail granting order, instead only respondent No. 2 initiated such proceedings

Once bail is granted, it should not be cancelled unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as misuse of concession, interference with the investigation, or commission of a subsequent offence

Mere dissatisfaction of the complainant is not a valid ground for bail cancellation

In the present case, respondent No.2 with mala fide intention relied on the addition of a new section to invoke the prohibitory clause as a ground for cancelling of bail, which was against the settled principles for cancellation of bail

Deletion or substitution of relevant section of P.P.C through Diary Numbers (Zaminies) by the Investigating Officer did not control the judicial discretion of Court exercised under S.497(2), Cr.P.C

In cases of bail, the facts of the FIR or complaints were to be seen by the Court while granting bail and the bail was granted in its entirety, therefore, after granting the bail, the Investigating Officer could not undermine the order passed by the Court in bail petitions by way of addition or deletion of the sections in FIR

Any subsequent changes or additions in the FIR do not automatically invalidate the bail order unless misuse of concession, obstruction of justice, or other compelling reasons are established

In the present case, none of the grounds as mentioned above were available to the Additional Sessions Judge for recalling of the bail granting order

Investigation of the case had already been finalized and physical custody of the petitioner was no more required for the purposes of investigation, therefore, Additional Sessions Judge could not have recalled the bail granting order passed by Judicial Magistrate

No illegality or perversity had been found in the bail granting order

Revision petition was accepted in circumstances and impugned bail recalling order was set-aside.

Statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded in injured condition of deceased, one day prior to his death, was rightly not considered as a dying declaration by Trial Court as death occurred on the next day

Investigation was completed to the extent of petitioner accused

After submission of challan, trial had also commenced

Trial Court, after tentative assessment of material available on record granted pre-arrest bail to petitioner accused but the same was wrongly cancelled by High Court without appreciating that no grounds for cancellation of pre-arrest bail of petitioner accused were available to complainant

While cancelling pre-arrest bail of petitioner accused, High Court also failed to appreciate that there was nothing on record to show that petitioner accused ever abused or misused concession of pre-arrest bail

On the basis of tentative assessment of material available on record, apprehension of petitioner accused for his arrest by police at the behest of complainant with mala fide and ulterior motives, could not held as vague or baseless

Grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner accused by Trial Court was not "granted in wrong exercise of discretion"

Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and restored that of Trial Court

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and bail was allowed.

Bail may be cancelled; (i) If the bail is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice; (ii) the accused has misused the concession of bail in any manners; (iii) accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading/pressurizing prosecution witnesses; (iv) there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court; (v) the accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation; (vi) accused has misused his liberty while indulging into similar offence; and (vii) some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation with tends to establish guilt of the accused.

Bail may be cancelled (i) if the bail is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted into miscarriage of justice; (ii) the accused has misused the concession of bail in any manner; (iii) accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by persuading / pressurizing prosecution witnesses; (iv) there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of court; (v) the accused has attempted to interfere with the smooth course of investigation; (vi) accused misused his liberty while indulging into similar offence; (vii) some fresh facts and material has been collected during the course of investigation which tends to establish guilt of the accused.

Bail may be cancelled (i) if bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and is a result of miscarriage of justice; (ii) if the accused has misused the concession of bail; (iii) if the accused has tried to tamper/hamper prosecution evidence; (iv) if there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (v) if the accused has misused his liberty by being involved in a similar offence; (vi) if some fresh facts and material have been collected during the course of investigation which tend to establish theguilt of the accused.

Cancellation of orders granting bail are ordinarily resorted by the (Supreme) Court on two grounds: (i) when the impugned order is perverse on the face of it or (ii) when the impugned order has been made in clear disregard of some principle of the law of bail

Perverse order is one that has been passed against the weight of the material on the record or by ignoring such material or without applying the relevant legal criteria or without giving reasons

Such an order is also termed as arbitrary, whimsical and capricious.

Prima facie, that version of complainant was supported by Medico Legal Certificate; further, the footage of CCTV also supported the version of the complainant

Accused had pointed pistol towards the complainant and pressed the trigger; whether he had intention to kill or not was the question which could be determined by the Trial Court but prima facie, an act had been committed causing homicidal injury

Order passed by Trial Court was not sustainable, same was set aside and bail granted to the accused was recalled, in circumstances.

Strong and cogent reasons are required for cancellation of bail as the grounds for grant of bail and that of cancellation of bail granted by a competent Court of Law are different

Bail granted to the accused can only be cancelled on the following grounds: (i) That if bail granting order is perverse or disregards settled principles regulating the grant of bail; (ii) That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by pressurizing the prosecution witnesses; (iii) That it is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice; (iv) That the accused after grant of bail has misused the concession of bail; and (v) That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused.

Grounds which are taken into consideration for cancellation of bail, detailed.

Once bail is granted on merits by the court of competent jurisdiction, very strong and exceptional circumstances are required to cancel the same.

Once bail to an accused is granted, the same may be recalled when the accused misuses the concession of bail or the order of bail is patently illegal.

Accused persons were alleged to have evaded huge amount of duty and taxes through submission of fabricated invoices, however, they were enlarged on bail by the Trial Court

Remote possibilities, as contended by the prosecution, came under deeper appreciation of evidence as such the same could not be considered either at the time of granting bail or otherwise

Exoneration after adjudication in respect of alleged tax evasion had created a doubt regarding the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt went in favour of the accused even at the bail stage

Case against accused persons was based on documentary evidence and/or the deposition of official witnesses, there-fore, there was no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence

Applications for cancellation of bail were dismissed, in circumstances.

Strong and exceptional grounds are required for the cancellation of bail granted by a court of competent jurisdiction for provision of S.497(5), Cr.P.C. is not at all punitive

No legal compulsion exists for the cancellation of bail granted in cases which are punishable with death/life imprisonment/ imprisonment for ten years.

Accused is not to be deprived of the benefit of bail whenever reasonable doubt arises about his participation in the crime or about truth/probability of the prosecution case

High Court observed that it would be better to keep accused on bail than in jail during the period of trial

Personal liberty granted to an accused by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be snatched away from him unless it becomes necessary to do so under the law.

Bail can be cancelled only when solid grounds are shown for cancellation of the same i.e. misuse of concession of bail or if there is allegation against the accused that he is putting influence on the prosecution's witnesses or it is shown that the bail order has been passed in gross violation of any rule or against the principle governing the bail matter.

Strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancellation of bail granted by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Merely on the ground that the accused has committed a heinous offence, concession of bail, already granted to the accused cannot be recalled.

Accused persons were alleged to have evaded huge amount of duty and taxes through submission of fabricated invoices, however, they were enlarged on bail by the Trial Court

Remote possibilities, as contended by the prosecution, came under deeper appreciation of evidence as such the same could not be considered either at the time of granting bail or otherwise

Exoneration after adjudication in respect of alleged tax evasion had created a doubt regarding the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt went in favour of the accused even at the bail stage

Case against accused persons was based on documentary evidence and/or the deposition of official witnesses, therefore, there was no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence

Applications for cancellation of bail were dismissed, in circumstances.

Courts have always been slow to cancel bail, already granted as the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed on flimsy grounds

Interference with an order of bail is required to be made when the same lacks reasons or is perfunctory in nature

Once bail has been granted, the prosecution was to make out a strong case for cancellation of bail not by making allegation alone but by giving substantive proof of such allegation

Order for cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of an individual, hence it must not be resorted to lightly and power to take back in custody is to be exercised with due care and circumspection.

Once bail is granted by a competent court of law, it can only be recalled if the bail granting order is perverse or in utter disregard to the evidence of case. [Para. 8 of the judgment]

Once discretion was exercised by the court of competent jurisdiction for grant of bail or confirmation of ad-interim bail, same could not be reversed or recalled unless the same was either perverse or illegal

Strong and cogent reasons were required to be furnished for cancellation of bail.

Grounds and principles for grant of bail were totally different from the grounds and principles for cancellation of bail already granted to accused.

Considerations for the cancellation of bail were totally different from the considerations for the grant of bail.

For cancellation of bail very strong, exceptional and cogent reasons regarding misusing, abusing, hampering with prosecution evidence and repeating the same offence were required.

Conditions for cancellation of bail were that where there was likelihood of abscondance of the accused; or there was apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence; or there was danger of the offence being repeated if the accused was released on bail and where the accused was a previous convict.

Abscondence by itself could not be a substitute of evidence; it was a circumstance which was always taken in a criminal case as corroboration towards the guilt and not as proof of the guilt.

Principles.

Principles of propriety and practice regarding filing, entertaining and deciding applications for bail, cancellation of bail or suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of an appeal enunciated.

Grounds and principles stated.

Once concession of bail was extended by a court of competent jurisdiction, in normal circumstances, the same was not to be interfered with unless the order was perverse or not tenable on the face of the record.

Grounds to be kept in view by the court.

Principles stated.

For cancellation of bail very strong, exceptional and cogent reasons regarding misusing, abusing, hampering with prosecution evidence and repeating of the same offence were required.

Accused and co-accused persons allegedly inflicted a beating on the deceased, whereafter accused fired at and killed the deceased

Complainant had stated that fire was made by accused, which fact was authenticated by prosecution witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.

Weapon with live bullets was also recovered at the instance of accused

Sufficient material was available on record to connect accused with the charge of murder of deceased

Bail granted to accused by Trial Court was withdrawn in circumstances.

Strong and exceptional circumstances were required to cancel the bail already granted to the accused by a competent court of law e.g. where the order granting bail was patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and had resulted on the miscarriage of justice.

Considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof, were entirely different; there should be extra-ordinary circumstances for recalling the order once passed in favour of accused

Primary and foremost consideration to cancel/ recall bail granting order was misuse of the concession of bail, which was to be proved by adducing cogent/convincing material.

Bail granting order may be prone to interference under S. 497(5), Cr.P.C, if the same was arbitrary, absurd or fanciful.

Bail granted to accused could be cancelled where order for grant of bail was patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and had resulted in miscarriage of justice; or where accused misused his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity; or where accused attempted to tamper with prosecution evidence, and/or where accused went underground or became unavailable to the investigation agency.

Accused (police official) was part of a police party which killed the complainant's son (deceased) in a police encounter

High Court granted bail to accused on the basis that no prosecution witness had implicated him with the commission of the offence; no material was available with the prosecution except statement of accused under S.161, Cr.P.C. to connect him with the crime, therefore, his false implication could not be ruled out

Contentions of complainant were that accused had admitted in his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. that he was member of the police party involved in the encounter in which deceased was killed, and that accused had also admitted the same fact in his bail application before the District Judge

Validity

Accused had admitted in his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. that he was a member of the police party which killed the deceased in an encounter

Accused had admitted killing the deceased in an encounter in his bail application filed before the District Judge

Accused had implicated himself in the alleged crime and on a tentative opinion he could not wriggle out of his own statement after admitting to be a member of the police party involved in killing the deceased

No overt act on the part of deceased was shown as to how he caused harm to police officials or their property

Admittedly none of the police officials involved in the encounter received any injuries

Sufficient material was available on record to connect accused with the commission of the alleged crime

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and bail granted to accused by the High Court was cancelled.

Bail granted by court should not be normally cancelled under S.497(5), Cr.P.C unless it is found that the order is whimsical or fanciful but if it is established that the person released on bail has repeated the offence in order to put pressure on the complainant or witness to effect compromise and resile from the evidence then naturally he cannot be allowed to remain at liberty and enjoy the concession of bail granted by the court.

Once a bail was granted to an accused by a competent court of law, strong grounds were required for cancellation of bail

If something material was brought against accused that he had abused/misused the concession of bail granted to hint; or the bail granting order was perverse and against the settled principles of law governing the grant of bail; or accused attempted to tamper with the evidence; or he hampered the investigation, then the bail granting order could be recalled

Record of the case was silent with regard to tampering or hampering the investigation by the accused

Counsel for applicant/ complainant was unable to make out a case for cancellation of bail in given circumstances

Trial of the case had also been initiated

Liberty by way of bail granted to accused persons, could not be recalled merely on the whims of the petitioner/complainant

Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed.

Bail can be cancelled if the order granting bail is perverse on the face of it and has been passed in violation of the principles for grant of bail or the same is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

When the case is at trial stage, bail cannot be cancelled except in extra-ordinary circumstances, so that it may not cause any prejudice to any party.

Bail could be cancelled, if the same had been granted in a capricious manner, without assigning reasons; or on the basis of perverse or invalid reasons; or accused had attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence and hampered investigation; accused extended threats to the witnesses had committed or attempted to commit the same offence; or if he absconded after grant of bail

If bail granting order was without jurisdiction, having been passed without observing the mandatory provisions, High Court had ample powers to entertain application under S.497(5), Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner/complainant had contended that accused persons being influential persons, were trying to tamper with the prosecution evidence, but no document had been produced by the complainant in support of such contention

Impugned bail granting order was well-versed and the reasons advanced by the Trial Court, were well-founded, except qua terming the offence in question as bailable

Any finding or observation at bail stage was of tentative in nature; and that would not put or imprint any impact on the trial

Petition for cancellation of bail, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant sought cancellation of bail on the ground that when accused was granted bail, he had already recovered from the ailment complained of

Validity

Tests conducted on the advice of Medical Board showed no abnormality and all tests appeared to be normal

Medical Board deferred its final opinion for the reason that angiogram was not available, for which reason case had already lingered on

Opinion could be based on the tests conducted on the advice of the Board which were normal

Medical Board had already expressed its observation and there was no reason for further delay in the matter

When bail application was granted accused had overcome whatever problem he was suffering from, therefore, there was no justification for further allowing the accused to remain on bail

Supreme Court set aside the bail granting order and directed the accused to surrender before Trial Court

Appeal was allowed.

Bail can be cancelled, if the order on the face of it is perverse, patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect resulting in miscarriage of justice or has been passed in violation of the principles for grant of bail.

Considerations for cancellation of bail are altogether different from those required for grant or refusal of bail to an accused

Once the accused had been admitted to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction, then extraordinary circumstances are required to interfere with the said order.