IMPORTANT POINT
Cancellation of bail should not be done in a mechanical manner and requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, as well as consideration of relevant factors and not granting bail on untenable grounds.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons namely, Santosh Kumar i.e. respondent no. 2 and Jameel Akhtar i.e. respondent no. 3, vide order dated 19.03.2020, by the learned Trial Court, in FIR No. 400/2018, registered at Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') on the ground that the accused persons are threatening and abusing the complainant and her relatives.

2. The FIR in this case was registered on 07.12.2018 on the complaint made by the petitioner herein whereby it was alleged that her three daughters had been kidnapped on 04.12.2018 by the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the accused persons are violating the bail conditions, imposed upon them by the learned Trial Court, vide order granting bail dated 19.03.2020, since the accused had threatened the victims with dire consequences and PCR calls had been made on 04.06.2020 and 09.06.2020. It is further stated that on 14.06.2020, the accused persons had attempted to burn the petitioner's house by pouring petrol on the main gate. It is also submitted that another FIR No. 705/2020 was registered on 10.07.2020,on the complaint lodged by petitioner, on allegations that her two daughters had gone missing and that there have been several instances on which the accused persons have threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is also pointed out that one more FIR was registered on 05.02.2021 on the complaint of petitioner as her minor daughter had gone missing. It is submitted that the accused persons are misusing the liberty granted to them by the learned Trial Court and that they are a threat to the complainant and her family. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail granted to the accused persons be cancelled.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the complainant/petitioner has been making false allegations against the accused persons, solely with the motive of getting their bails cancelled. It is further stated that since their release on bail, the accused persons have neither contacted the complainant nor any of her family members. It is further stated that the complainant herein had filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the co-accused persons herein which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.06.2020 on the ground that the complaints made by the complainant contained only general allegations against the accused persons.Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be dismissed.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that PCR calls made by the complainant had been answered and upon conducting enquiry, no evidence was found to register a case against the accused persons. It is stated one FIR has already been registered on 10.07.2020 qua the alleged incident of 30.06.2020, and one another FIR was registered on 05.02.2021 when the daughter of petitioner had gone missing.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

7. The present petition has been filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons in the year 2020 by the learned Trial Court.

8. Before considering merits of the case, this Court finds it necessary to look at the law on cancellation of bail. In this regard, a reference can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of 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 f