IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that bail should be denied if the accused's conduct poses a risk to the judicial process, particularly in cases involving serious offences and repeated criminal activity.

JUDGMENT :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing instant bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they have falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of the statements of the co-accused. They further submit that the petitioners were neither named in the FIR nor any recovery has been affected at their instance. It is further prayed that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. Thus, It is prayed that the accused-petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the submissions advanced at the Bar.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material as made available to the Court.

5. This Court had cancelled the bail already granted to the co-accused Suresh Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid and the said order is being reproduced hereunder:-

“1. The instant application for cancellation of bail has been preferred on behalf of the complainant Mukesh Kumar Agarwal mainly on the grounds of abuse of liberty granted to the accused-respondents so also on the grounds of reasonability and propriety.

2. This court had granted bail to accused Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid vide order dated 22.03.2022 on the premise that the case was triable by the Court of Magistrate and they were in judicial custody and so also looking to the speculated longevity of the trial.

3. The petitioner moved an application for cancellation of bail granted to the above named accused and a Coordinate bench of this court had dismissed the bail cancellation application vide order dated 29.03.2023.

4. The complainant, aggrieved by the dismissal of application for cancellation of bail, had made approach to Hon’ble the Supreme Court by way of filing a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8357/2023, which converted into Criminal Appeal No. 1293/2024. Vide order dated 01.03.2024, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has set aside the order passed by a Coordinate bench of this Court dated 29.03.2023 and remit the matter back to this Court for making consideration afresh regarding cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application was restored to its original number.

5. Before proceeding further to discuss the legal aspect of the matter regarding cancellation of bail, it would be apt to mention the legal trajectory of the matter, which is very relevant to discuss the conduct of the accused-respondent.

6. The bail cancellation application was moved before this Court mainly on the ground of post-release conduct of the accused. It was averred in the application that after getting release from the jail on 05.04.2022, some of the accused illegally trespassed into the premise of the petitioner, broke down the CCTV cameras and nameplate installed there. After breaking the lock put on the room, the mischievous persons took away the monitor and hard drive of the CCTV cameras. The matter was informed to the Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur City (South) and an FIR