Cancellation of bail should be treated differently from a bail application and should only be cancelled if strong and compelling reasons exist, as established by legal precedents and guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The applicant has preferred the present application under section 439(2) read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ('Cr.P.C.') seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused in case FIR bearing No.440/2014, registered under section 354/354A/354D/506/509 of Indian Penal Code,1860 ('IPC').

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Session Judge ('ASJ'), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in case titled as "State v. Kuldeep Parashar", whereby, Kuldeep Parashar i.e., respondent no. 2 was granted regular bail. The relevant portion of the bail order is reproduced as under:

"Thus, keeping in view of the totality of the circumstances, the period. of custody, completion of investigation, the court is of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met, if the accused is admitted on bail. Accordingly, the accused Kuldeep Parashar is admitted on bail on furnishing BB in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned MM/Duty MM/Link MM, however, subject to the following conditions:

(1) The accused/applicant shall' not leave the jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court without its prior permission and shall surrender his passport, if any, within one week of his release in the concerned court.

(2) The accused/applicant shall not contact or try to contact either the complainant, her husband or any other witness either directly or indirectly.

(3) The applicant/accused shall not visit the residential or work place of complainant and his husband during the period of bail and shall also not be found within the radius of 100 meters of the Pujari Apartment near Udyog Metro Station, Rohtak Road, New Delhi or their work place.

(3) Accused/Applicant shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution's witnesses or affect the course of the trial by the accused in any manner prejudicial to either interest of trial or that of to complainant....".

3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently states that learned Trial Court erred in granting bail to the applicant since, it had failed to consider the gravity of offence committed. It is stated that the allegations against respondent no. 2 are serious in nature and learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that, if respondent no. 2 is granted bail, he will influence the witnesses.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 vehemently opposes the present application and states that learned Trial Court had considered the gravity of offence as well as the facts and material placed on record. It is further argued that order vide which respondent no. 2 was granted bail, was a reasoned order passed by learned Trial Court and that there is no infirmity in the order, neither has respondent no. 2 violated any conditions imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court while granting bail.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 also argued that the principles to be to be followed at the time of consideration of bail applications is that rule is bail and jail is an exception. It is further contended that Trial is already underway and there is no complaint lodged regarding threats against the present applicant and therefore the application be rejected.

6. I have heard arguments on behalf of both the parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The question for consideration before this Court is whether the bail granted to respondent no. 2 be cancelled or not. Before getting to merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to consider the law regarding cancellation of bail, a reference can be made to Section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

"437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence -

(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of