The court emphasized the need for supervening circumstances or overwhelming evidence to warrant cancellation of bail, and highlighted the importance of not interfering with personal liberty without strong material against the accused.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the applicant/complainant for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Arpit Chadha vide order dated 18.12.2019 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, North East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi ('learned ASJ') in case FIR bearing no. 525/2019, registered at Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/377/34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and setting aside the said order.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that marriage between the complainant and the accused/respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 9.04.2017, after which the respondent and his family members had allegedly started harassing and torturing her for demand of dowry. Thereafter, the complainant had got the present FIR registered against the accused and his family members, alleging harassment for demand of dowry and on the allegations that her husband used to make unnatural physical relations with her against her will.

3. The accused persons including respondent no. 2 were granted anticipatory bail vide impugned order dated 18.12.2019 by learned ASJ, which has been challenged before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the anticipatory bail was granted to the accused without applying judicial mind at the initial stage of investigation, and without considering that allegations against the accused are serious in nature and that his being released on bail will adversely affect the trial. It is further stated that the accused has not been co-operating in the investigation after being enlarged on bail.

5. Learned APP for the State, however, submits that the accused had joined the investigation pursuant to grant of anticipatory bail and had returned all the dowry articles which were in possession of the accused. It has further argued that the accused is not involved nor convicted in any criminal case previously.

6. Arguments have been heard on behalf of both sides and material on record has been perused.

7. Since the petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused, it will be relevant to discuss the law regarding cancellation of bail. In this regard, this Court takes note of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559 wherein in was observed as under:

"...30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that 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 trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:

(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner

(iv) Possibility of accused absconding

(v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail

(vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.

31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:

a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.

b) Whe