IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Siyaram Singh S/o Shri Natthi Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.32 of 2024
Decided on : 19-10-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail cancellation - Application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent was filed, citing habitual offender status and previous FIRs - The court emphasized that mere pendency of cases is insufficient for cancellation of bail - Relevant parameters for granting bail include nature of accusations, gravity of offence, and conduct of the accused - The court reiterated that bail once granted should not be cancelled mechanically, and serious allegations must be substantiated for revocation - The petitioner failed to demonstrate misuse of bail by the accused-respondent. (Paras 1, 5, 7, 10)
(B) Bail - Considerations for cancellation - The court outlined that cancellation requires cogent reasons and must consider supervening circumstances - The discretion in granting bail must reflect judicial reasoning and not be based on irrelevant material. (Paras 8, 9)
ORDER :
1. The instant application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur vide order dated 19.01.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to lodging of the instant FIR, one more FIR was registered by one Sunil Kumar, nephew of the petitioner, against the accused-respondent wherein the respondent has been alleged to have abused and beaten Sunil and his family members. Learned counsel submits that as per the instant FIR, the accused-respondent has caused certain injuries on the legs of the victim, namely Sunil, and looking to the gravity of the matter, bail should not have been granted to the accused-respondent by the learned Trial Judge. Learned counsel submits that the accused-respondent is a habitual offender against whom eight criminal cases are pending. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, bail granted to the accused-respondent be cancelled.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after appreciating the evidence available on the record, indulgence of bail was granted to the respondent. Learned counsel submits that mere pendency of criminal cases is not a ground for cancellation of bail. Learned counsel submits that a cogent and reasoned order has been passed by the learned Trial Judge while exercising its jurisdiction of granting bail to the accused-respondent, hence under these circumstances, interference of this court is not warranted.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Trial Judge has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the evidence available on the record and, accordingly, granted bail to the accused-respondent. Allegation of causing injury on the legs of the victim made against the accused-respondent and that the accused-respondent was a habitual offender against whom eight criminal cases were registered cannot be the grounds for cancellation of bail. These grounds could have been raised and entertained before the Trial Court while granting or rejecting the bail to the accused-respondent but not before this Court under proceedings for cancellation of bail, as the grounds for allowing the bail application and for cancellation of bail application are altogether different.
6. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to mention the relevant parameters for granting of bail and considerations for setting aside the bail orders.
RELEVANT PARAMETERS FOR GRANTING BAIL
7. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.
8. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the g
Jagjeet Singh vs. Ashish Mishra reported in 2022 (9) SCC 321
Bail once granted should not be cancelled without cogent reasons and must consider supervening circumstances.
Bail should not be cancelled mechanically; serious allegations and proper reasoning are essential for cancellation, and the learned Trial Court's discretion must be respected unless perverse.
Cancellation of bail should be treated differently from a bail application and should only be cancelled if strong and compelling reasons exist, as established by legal precedents and guidelines.
Bail once granted should not be cancelled without cogent reasons, and the court must consider supervening circumstances carefully.
The court ruled that mere registration of a subsequent offence does not justify automatic bail cancellation; a thorough inquiry into supervening circumstances is necessary.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of bail and the legal principles governing the cancellation of bail.
(1) Cancellation of bail – Under normal circumstances, application for cancellation of bail filed on merits as opposed to violation of conditions of bail order should be placed before same Single Jud....
Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of supervening circumstances; mere subsequent charges do not automatically justify cancellation if they do not affect the original trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.