Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Sanjay Kumar Jangid – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar Agarwal – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[CrPC] in S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 73/2022 wherein the High Court cancelled the regular bail which was granted to the appellants vide order dated 22.03.2022.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the present matter pertains to FIR No. 854/2021 dated 15.11.2021 registered at P.S. Mansarovar, Jaipur City under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 447 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[IPC] lodged at the behest of Mukesh Kumar, i.e. respondent no. 1 herein, against Raj Rani Mittal, Deepak Jangid, Rahul Jangid, Dontesh Jangid i.e. appellant no. 2 herein, and other.
4. The instant appellants were arrested on 03.02.2022 during the investigation, and thereafter, the chargesheet was filed on 21.03.2023 for the offences mentioned in the FIR. On the basis of the investigation, it was found that as a part of the housing scheme named Padam Vihar, Plot No. A-56 was allotted to the respondent no. 1 by the society on 29.11.201
(1) Cancellation of bail – Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.(2) Rejection of bail stands on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is considere....
Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of misuse or supervening circumstances; mere allegations are insufficient.
Bail once granted should not be cancelled without cogent reasons, and the court must consider supervening circumstances carefully.
The court ruled that mere registration of a subsequent offence does not justify automatic bail cancellation; a thorough inquiry into supervening circumstances is necessary.
Bail once granted should not be cancelled without cogent reasons and must consider supervening circumstances.
Cancellations of bail require very strong and cogent reasons, especially when considering incidents that occurred after bail was granted; mere allegations are insufficient without substantial proof.
The court ruled that bail can be cancelled if the accused engages in further criminal conduct post-release, reflecting a disregard for the law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of bail and the legal principles governing the cancellation of bail.
Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of supervening circumstances; mere subsequent charges do not automatically justify cancellation if they do not affect the original trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
