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.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for cancellation of the bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) to respondents No.2 and 3 in Case No. 243/2024. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a businessman. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 lodged an FIR No.326 of 2017 dated 22.10.2017 against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). The matter was compromised, and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to pay Rs.1,80,00,000/- as consideration for the property to the petitioner. A cancellation report was filed before the Court. Subsequently, the amount was not paid, and the petitioner lodged FIR No. 206 of 2021 and FIR No. 12/2022 against the respondents. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also filed a petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MMO No. 677 of 2023. The petition was dismissed by this Court on October 25, 2024. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed a petition for granting pre-arrest bail, which was allowed, and the learned Trial Court granted interim bail to the respondents on 03.12.2024, which was confirmed on 11.12.2024. The learned Trial Court did not notice the gravity of the offence. Signatures of the petitioner, his wife, his son and his brother were forged by respondents Nos 2 and 3. This aspect was ignored by the learned Trial Court; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the bail granted to respondents nos. 2 & 3 be cancelled.

2. I have heard Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in granting bail to respondents No.2 and 3 without considering the gravity of the offence. The bail was granted hurriedly. The learned Trial Court held that the investigation was almost complete and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not required by the police for interrogation. However, the report of FSL is awaited, and the investigation cannot be said to be complete; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be cancelled.

3. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the State has not filed any petition for cancellation of the bail, and this Court may pass any appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 that the bail, once granted, should not be cancelled mechanically; however, an unreasoned and perverse order is open to interference by the Superior Court. The bail can be cancelled if there are serious allegations against the accused. It was observed at page 783:

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

26. 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. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar