IMPORTANT POINT
Bail should not be cancelled without supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions, emphasizing the need for a reasoned approach in such matters.

ORDER :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as the “Code”) [now Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter as the “BNSS”)] has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking cancellation of bail, which was granted to the respondent no. 2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-06, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, Delhi (hereinafter as the “ASJ”) vide order dated 11th January, 2023.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the petitioner, are that on 26th June, 2022, the petitioner was forcefully apprehended from his house on gun point by respondent no. 2, who is an accused in the aforesaid FIR. It is stated that the petitioner was beaten mercilessly by the respondent no. 2 and his associates, demanding a ransom of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was arranged by the petitioner and duly transferred to the respondent no. 2’s account.

3. It is stated that the petitioner was taken onto a building’s terrace and was allegedly tied to a cot, when the father of the respondent no. 2, who is also an accused in the instant FIR, came to the spot. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner was being taken to Meerut in a car by the respondent no. 2 and the co-accused/father, in order to kill him. While the accused persons were on their way to Meerut, the police apprehended them and the accused persons were arrested, including respondent no. 2.

4. In view of the arrest, the respondent no. 2 filed an application for regular bail before the learned ASJ and vide order dated 11th January, 2023 (hereinafter as the “impugned order”), the respondent no. 2 was granted regular bail.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to the respondent no.2.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned ASJ erred in passing the impugned order without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of offences leveled against the respondent no. 2.

7. It is submitted that the learned ASJ failed to take into consideration that the respondent no. 2 played an active role in commission of the offence, thereby demanding ransom as well as threatening to kill the petitioner at gun point.

8. It is submitted that the learned ASJ erroneously granted regular bail to the respondent no. 2 while stating that the petitioner had many opportunities to raise an alarm during the commission of the offence, however, the same was not utilized by the petitioner.

9. It is submitted that the father of the respondent no. 2, who is a co-accused, is an Assistant Sub-Inspector in Central Bureau of Investigation and therefore, being in a position of power, there are high chances of him exercising influence on the victim as well as the witnesses in the instant case.

10. It is submitted that the learned ASJ failed to apply judicial mind while granting bail to the respondent no. 2 as the same was passed in a mechanical manner and non-consideration of the settled position of law.

11. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition be allowed.

12. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the facts submitted on behalf of the petitioner corroborate the statement given under Section 164 of the Code, however, it is submitted that the requisite evidence including the CCTV footage and CDR’s of the respondent no. 2 and the petitioner have already been taken on record.

13. It is further submitted that the investigation in the instant case is completed, and chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet were already filed.

14. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submitted that the learned ASJ has rightly passed the impugned order by observing that a prima facie case for granting the bail was made out for the respondent no. 2. The basis of the same