Cancellation of bail requires supervening circumstances or serious infirmities in the bail order to justify the cancellation. Advanced technology should be considered to track under-trials.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. - With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This petition has been moved by the State under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 30.04.2020 by the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to the respondent/accused in FIR No.111/2000 dated 06.04.2000 under Sections 420/120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, which has been investigated by the Crime Branch. According to the petitioner/State, during investigations of an extortion case relating to FIR No.249/1999 dated 13.11.1999 under Sections 387/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station DBG Road Delhi, the Crime Branch came to know that some persons were conspiring to fix the India-South Africa Cricket Test Series to be played in the months of February to March, 2000 whereunder five One-Day matches and three Test matches were to be played at various places in India. The accused/respondent is alleged to have played a major role in fixing these matches, as it is alleged by the petitioner/State that he was the main link between the players and an alleged Syndicate which was running betting on these matches and had profited hugely from these match fixings as they controlled the outcome of each of these matches.

3. The petitioner/State has alleged that it was the accused/respondent who had given mobile phones and money to the late Hansie Cronje and he had enticed various players to play in a pre-planned manner, thus determining the final outcome of each match. The petitioner/State relied on the statements made by Hansie Cronje and Hamid Cassim before the Kings Commission, which revealed the deep-rooted involvement of the respondent/accused in the entire conspiracy. The Call Detail Analysis also revealed his continuous contact with Hamid Cassim. Further disclosures made by co-accused and the call details of other mobile phones used by the respondent/accused after reaching India on 20.02.2000 also connected him to the crime. After the petitioner/State had initiated extradition proceedings in the U.K., the respondent/accused was arrested on 13.02.2020 and pursuant to orders of this court dated 14.02.2020, he was taken to Tihar Jail No.3 the same day where he was extensively interrogated. A supplementary charge-sheet has also since been filed, which included a statement made by the respondent/accused, but which he refused to sign. The petitioner/State had obtained an order from the learned MM for taking voice sample and specimen handwriting of the respondent/accused, which were to be taken on 28.05.2020.

4. It is seen from the record that on 28.03.2020, the respondent/accused applied for bail in the court of the learned MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which was declined vide order dated 28.03.2020. Thereafter, on 29.04.2020, he moved the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (''learned ASJ'') Patiala House Courts, New Delhi who vide order dated 30.04.2020, granted bail to the respondent/accused directing that he be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Duty MM. A further direction was also given that on the very next day following his release from jail, he will give his voice sample and specimen handwriting and the I.O. was to take necessary steps. Further directions were given that the respondent/accused would not leave India without the permission of the court and is to provide his mobile number as well as that of his brother, who was a resident of Delhi, to the I.O. and keep the said phones operational at all times.

5. The present petition has been moved by the petitioner/State being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.04.2020 granting bail to the respondent/accused. It is contended by Sh. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner/State that the learned ASJ