Cancellation of bail demands cogent, overwhelming circumstances like interference with justice, evasion, or abuse of concession; not mechanical absent supervening events unfit for fair trial. (24 words)

Judgment :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant petition under Section 483(3) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”) has been filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 (accused) by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2023 in case FIR No. 196 of 2023, dated 24.06.2023, under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), registered at Police Station Sadar- Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

2. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2/accused, after obtaining the anticipatory bail from this Court started giving threats to him that if the complaint filed against the accused was not withdrawn, he would be done to death. Thereafter, when the petitioner tried to avoid Whatsapp calls of respondent No. 2/accused, he started calling friends and relatives of the petitioner and on 30.05.2024 Sunil Kumar (friend of the petitioner) received a call on his mobile from some unknown person, whereby, he was threatened that he would be done to death. Consequently, on 31.05.2024 two separate complaints were filed by the petitioner and his friend Sunil Kumar. However, respondent No. 1 neither took any action against respondent No. 2/accused nor showed any interest in the present matter, which resulted into a physical attack on Sunil Kumar on 08.06.2024 at the instance of respondent No. 2/accused. Despite various complaints registered against respondent No. 2/accused, he kept on threatening the petitioner. Thus, it has been prayed that since the petitioner apprehends severe danger to his life and to the lives of his family members, relatives and friends, hence, the present petition may be allowed and anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused may be cancelled.

3. Respondent No. 2 by filing reply to the petition has denied all the allegations levelled by the petitioner against him and prayed dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 1/State as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and also carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. It is a settled law that cancellation of bail requires altogether a different consideration than granting of bail. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. In Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at initial stage and cancellation of bail so granted, has to be dealt with and considered on different basis. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

“Rejection of 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 bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) 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 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 render