Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of supervening circumstances; mere allegations are insufficient.

Order :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2/accused by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (POCSO), Raipur, (CG) vide order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-3).

2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that on 15.09.2024 complainant (father of victim) has lodged report before the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that accused/respondent No.2 herein has harassed her daughter, pressurize for marriage and also threatened to kill her, if she disclosed the harassment. Based upon the report, FIR was registered against the accused for offence under Sections 75, 351(2) of BNS and Section 08 of the POCSO Act and he has been arrested on 28.09.2024. However, learned Session Judge vide Annexure P-3, has granted bail to the accused on certain terms and condition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-3 on the ground of it being perverse in law as learned Session Court while granting bail to the accused has failed to considered the evidence/material and facts and circumstances of this case in its true perspective. Further, accused/respondent No.2 after being released on bail pursuant to order Annexure P-3, has not followed the terms and condition imposed upon him by the Court concerned as the accused has trying to disturb the proceeding of the trial. Since respondent No.2/accused is violating the terms and conditions of the bail order Annexure P-3, the same may be cancelled in the interest of justice.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State opposes the above contention of counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. On the issue with regard to rejection/cancellation of bail already granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , has held in para 4, which reads 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 dealth 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 for 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.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hazari Lal Das Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 held in para 7, which reads thus:-

“7. There is nothing on record that there has been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not appear from the record that the concession granted to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered