Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Jangid & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Mukesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2381 of 2025 (Arising From SLP (CRL) Nos. 1632 of 2025)
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Bail – Cancellation of – Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow accused to enjoy concession of bail during trial – Rejection of bail stands on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with liberty of an individual and it must not be lightly resorted to – Even though multiple FIRs have been lodged against co-accused persons after appellants’ release on bail, names of instant appellants have not been mentioned in most of these FIRs, nor any allegation has been levied against appellants – Merely because subsequent FIRs have been registered against other co-accused persons, it does not become a valid or fair ground to seize liberty of bail that has been extended to appellants – Exercise of cancellation of bail is a strict one and needs to be executed in a restrictive manner, only when circumstances demand for it – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal has been preferred by accused appellants against judgment and order dated 03.12.2024 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 in S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 73/2022 wherein High Court cancelled regular bail which was granted to appellants.
Findings of Court:
We also hereby direct expeditious disposal of the trial pending before the Court of Magistrate, in connection with FIR registered for the offence(s) under Sections 420,406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, within eight months from the receipt of this order.
Result : Appeal allowed.
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 29.11.2014. The respondent no. 1 was not regularly residing at the said plot, and on one of the occasions when he was visiting the said plot, he came to know that one Deepak Jangid, who lives near the said plot, in connivance with one Raj Rani Mittal, has hatched a conspiracy and dishonestly got the said plot registered in his name and submitted fake documents to the Jaipur Development Authority3[JDA] .
5. It was further alleged that the accused persons, in connivance with the JDA officials, got the lease issued in their name. The modus operandi adopted by the accused persons was that they, with the help of one Jitendra Kumar Kashyap, prepared fake documents and approached Raj Rani Mittal, who was reflected to be the purported owner of the plot in question as per some old documents. Thereafter, the accused Rahul Jangid got an agreement prepared in the name of Raj Rani Mittal and Deepak Jangid dated 14.09.2021, transferring the said plot to Deepak Jangid. Further, Rahul Jangid also got another document in the nature of a General Power of Attorney4[GPA] prepared, thereby appointing himself as the attorney holder of Raj Rani Mittal on 14.09.2021. The said GPA was notarized in Jaipur on 16.09.2021 in the presence of the instant appellants.
6. Therefore, the role that was attributed to the appellants herein was that since they were witnesses to the said GPA and also related to the other accused persons, therefore, they were an intricate part of the entire conspiracy. Another allegation against the instant appellants is that it was in their presence that the registry of the said plot was done on 19.10.2021, based on forged documents.
7. The present appellants were granted regular bail by the High court, vide order dated 22.03.2022, mainly based on the ground that the trial may take long time to conclude and it is just and proper to release the accused persons (appellants herein) on bail in the meanwhile.
8. Consequently, respondent no. 1, i.e. the complainant, filed the Bail Cancellation Application No. 73/2022 under Section 439(2) of the CrPC seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to the appellants. The High Court, vide order dated 29.03.2023, dismissed the bail cancellation application.
9. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2023, respondent no. 1 filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8357 of 2023 before this Court which, on admission, got converted into Criminal Appeal No. 1293 of 2024. This Court, vide order dated 01.03.2024, set aside the High Court’s order dated 29.03.2023 on account of it being cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter back to the High Court with directions to give detailed reasons for the dismissal of the bail cancellation application.
10. Accordingly, the Bail Cancellation Application No. 73 of 2022 preferred by the resp
(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
