Cancellation of bail should be based on very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, and should not be lightly resorted to. The court should carefully weigh the acceptability of the allegations for cancellation of bail.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19th October, 2015 dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent No.2, the petitioner prefers the present petition. The name of the petitioner has been changed in the cause title to conceal the identity of the petitioner.

2. FIR No.252/2014 was registered on the complaint of the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (In short the POCSO Act). The petitioner alleged that she was staying on rent with her mother for the last two years and studying in 10th standard. On 28th February, 2014 while going to the School she was standing at Kondli Mode when at around 11.00 AM the respondent No.2 whom she knew earlier came on a motorcycle and stated that he would drop her at the school. Influenced by his words she sat on the motorcycle, however on reaching the school he did not drop her and did not even pay heed to her words that he should stop the motorcycle. The respondent No.2 threatened her to remain seated on the motorcycle otherwise the petitioner would face consequences. The respondent No.2 took the motorcycle to a room near Chilla Regulator where he committed rape on her. After committing rape he dropped her at her school at around 3.00 PM. Due to fear she did not tell the facts to her mother and later revealed the facts where after the FIR was registered on 4th March, 2015. The respondent No.2 was arrested and was sent to judicial custody on 6th March, 2014.

3. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and the petitioner was examined and cross-examined by the learned APP on 25th August, 2014. After the petitioner was examined, vide order dated 20th October, 2014, the learned ASJ noting that the statement of the prosecutrix had been recorded and it would take time to conclude the trial, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case admitted the respondent No.2 to bail.

4. Challenging the said order dated 20th October, 2014 being perverse and that after being released on bail the respondent No.2 was harassing the petitioner, application for cancellation of bail was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the order dated 19th October, 2015. Hence the present petition.

5. The legal position on the twin grounds agitated for preferring the present petition for cancellation of bail i.e. perversity in the order and harassment to the witness was dealt by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2001) 67 SCC 338 Puran Vs. Rambilas & Anr. and it was held:

“10. Mr Lalit next submitted that once bail has been granted it should not be cancelled unless there is evidence that the conditions of bail are being infringed. In support of this submission he relies upon the authority in the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. In this case it has been held that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. It has been held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. It has been held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly 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. It is, however, to be noted that this Court has clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be s