The court emphasized that bail should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering supervening circumstances that render it no longer conducive to a fair trial, and it should only be cancelled in discerning cases where it is established that the concession of bail is being misused.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J. - This order may be read in continuation of my earlier order dated 18.03.2021. The petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 01.08.2018 by the learned ASJ for the period of two months on medical grounds but he filed an application for extension, which application was dismissed by the learned ASJ on 01.10.2018. The petitioner did not surrender. The NBWs were thus issued against him on 09.10.2018 as he failed to surrender on dismissal of the application for extension of the interim bail and he approached this Court and it disposed of the application on 22.10.2018 asking him to surrender. However, he failed to surrender and a notice was issued to his surety, who rather deposited the surety amount on 18.03.2019. Thereafter the process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. was issued. The petitioner was then arrested on 27.07.2020 and bail was granted to him on 06.08.2020.

2. A bare perusal of the order dated 06.08.2020 reveals the learned APP for the State had opposed his bail application stating interalia there are chances the applicant may again jump bail, if granted, likewise his past conduct.

3. Hence, his past conduct, though not, specifically, discussed in the order dated 06.08.2020, certainly was argued on behalf of the State but considering the fact the co-accused person were already granted bail by the Courts below, and one of the co-accused viz. Vinit Mittal was granted anticipatory bail and as the applicant was no more required for investigation purposes, he was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond/surety of Rs.50,000/- and was directed a) to deposit his passport with the court and b) not to leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.

4. The respondent No.2 being not satisfied with the order on bail, moved an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the said bail granted vide order dated 06.08.2020.

5. I have perused the application for cancellation of the bail which primarily speaks of the past conduct of the accused viz. having failed to surrender despite his interim bail being cancelled; his surety amount being deposited; and process under section 82/83 Cr.P.C. having being issued.

6. Admittedly, the bail order dated 06.08.2020 was reversed and the bail was cancelled vide impugned order dated 26.11.2020 primarily on his past conduct viz. failure to surrender after expiry of his interim bail. The relevant portion of the impugned order is:

"Ld. ASJ (N/W) while dismissing the bail application vide order dated 1/10/2018 had gone to the facts of the case in detail and observed that such kind of heinous offences amounts to misuse of the judicial process and has to be dealt with seriousness lest it erodes the faith of the public in the entire judicial system. The accused Vikas Mittal/Non-applicant has not only fled away after seeking interim bail on medical grounds but also failed to fulfill his undertaking before Hon ble High Court of Delhi for surrendering before the ld. Trial Court. Such kind of conduct of the accused/non-applicant Vikas Mittal should have been taken into account by Ld.C.M.M. (N/W) while disposing the bail application.

Though there is no such subsequent conduct of tampering with the evidence or threatening the witnesses etc. as contended by ld. Counsel for the non-applicant/accused but keeping in view his previous conduct there is likelihood that he may not make himself available for trial. In criminal Jurisprudence, accused have been given many rights but at the same time rights of the complainant cannot be overlooked altogether who may ultimately loose faith in the judicial system."

7. Though the learned ASJ noted there is no subsequent conduct of tampering with the evidence or threatening the witnesses yet keeping in view his previous conduct that he may not make himself available, cancelled his bail by impugned order.

8. The learned APP for the State has referred to Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SC