Cancellation of bail requires compelling evidence of misconduct or supervening circumstances affecting fairness of trial; mere subsequent offenses do not suffice.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The applicant/State has preferred the present application under Sections 439(2) read with 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused/respondent Mohd. Naved@Pilla in case FIR No. 964/2015, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").

2. The respondent was granted regular bail in the aforesaid case vide order dated 10.10.2018 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in SC No.28312/2016 titled as "State vs. Mohd. Naved @ Peela".

3. The case of applicant is that the respondent Mohd. Naved @ Pilla misused the liberty granted by the Court and started getting involved in serious criminal activities and have flouted the conditions of bail. It is submitted by learned APP for State that while the respondent was out on bail, an FIR No. 211/2020, PS Sarai Rohilla, under Sections 394/427/506/34 of IPC was registered on 11.06.2020 against the respondent and his family members for robbing the shop of a person namely Akhlakh, who stated that one Mohd. Sadkeen used to took eatables from his shop without paying the same and when he raised his voice against it, Mohd. Sadkeen started beating him and he was joined by his family members including the respondent herein, and all of them then destroyed his shop. Further, when complainant went to the police station to register his complaint regarding the said incident, the accused persons pelted the stones at the police officials also. Learned APP for State submits that on the same day, another FIR No. 210/2020, PS Sarai Rohilla, under Sections 186/353/307/34 of IPC and Sections 27 and 54 of the Arms Act, 1959 was also registered against the respondent on the complaint of SI Pankaj Thakaran who was posted as I/C PP Inderlok, wherein he stated that while he was addressing the dispute among the parties, the respondent started verbally abusing the police officers and he was even carrying a gun while he entered the premises and had fired shots. He also stated that respondent along with the other accused persons attacked the staff posted at PP Inderlok in which he sustained injuries.

4. Learned APP for the State submits that the respondent has flouted the conditions of bail by committing new offences while on bail. It is argued that is trite law that when the court lay down the conditions of bail, there are certain inherent conditions attached to the bail order as specified in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C while granting bail to the accused involved in commission of heinous crimes. Such inherent conditions include condition which would deter the accused from committing an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected during the period of bail.

5. It is further stated by learned APP that the trial court erred in granting bail to the accused/respondent by taking irrelevant materials into consideration, in view of which, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside.

6. No one appeared before this Court to argue the matter on behalf of respondent/accused. On earlier occasions also, there has been an irregular appearance of the learned counsel for respondent. In view of the same, the contentions of the respondent/accused are being taken from the reply filed on his behalf. The contentions of learned counsel for respondent are that the basic principal of grant of bail is on different footing then of cancellation of bail, and that overwhelming circumstance