The court established that failing to appear in court when granted bail violates bail conditions, leading to potential cancellation of bail.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by learned CJM, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder, the bail of the petitioner was cancelled consequent upon his not appearing before the trial court on four consecutive dates nor his lawyer taking any step on his behalf and issued the non-bailable warrant against him in connection with Mahila P.S. case no. 06 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. case no. 581 of 2017 and also to quash the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Cr. Rev. 288 of 2022 which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was admitted to bail by learned Judicial Magistrate in terms of the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ABA No. 957 of 2018. After being granted bail, the petitioner submitted bail bond in the court of learned JMFC with sureties and in the bail bond, he undertook to appear before the trial court on each and every date to which, the case will be next fixed. On 09.05.2022, the witness of the prosecution was present but to frustrate the same, the petitioner neither appeared himself nor his lawyer took any step for his exemption from his personal appearance and keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner in not co-operating in hearing of the case by which the witness was returned unexamined, his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dolat Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana , (1994) 0 Supreme (SC) 1178 , that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has mentioned that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted but that was not a case, where the petitioner did not appear before the trial court after being granted bail on the date fixed nor any step was filed on behalf of the accused person of that case by his lawyer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Sharma @ Krishna Kumar Sharma vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. 2024 Supreme (SC) 881 , submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has opined that the bail already granted may be cancelled, if it is found that person who has been granted the benefit of bail, has violated any of the conditions or misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1161 , submits that therein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439 (2) CrPC.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relying upon the order of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Agarwal Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another dated 01.03.2024 passed in Cr. M.P. 3217 of 2022 and submits that therein, this Court