Cancellation of bail requires substantial evidence of interference with justice or other compelling reasons, not merely the addition of more serious charges.

ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this court the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of X Versus State of Telangana & Others reported in 2018(16) SCC 511 (2018 AIR SC 2466) to submit that once the bail bond has been granted by the court, conditions under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. must be taken into consideration for cancellation of bail and merely because, the bail has added the non-bailable offence, the petitioner's bail could not be cancelled. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in the cases of Chandra Pal Singh Choudhary Versus Vijit Singh & Others reported in 2009(1) RLW 693 and Gheesva &Others Versus State of Rajasthan reported in 1988(2) RLW 326.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the prosecutrix's statement was recorded earlier under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police without complying with the Section 26 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the parents of the prosecutrix were not present at the time of recording of the statement. However, later on the subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was in the presence of her parents and she has made allegations against the accused of having committed rape and abducting her.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the case for the offence under Section(s) 363 & 376 IPC and POCSO Act is clearly made out and therefore, the leaned Special Judge, POCSO Cases 2012 has rightly cancelled bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

4. In the case of X Versus State of Telangana (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"12. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0547/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 349 observed that:

Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference orattempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the Accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the Accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, 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 the trial.

These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan MANU/SC/0518/2011 : (2011) 5 SCC 296 and more recently in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0085/2018 : 2018 (2) SCALE 285:

It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the Accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the C