Bail conditions must not include automatic cancellation upon subsequent offenses; cogent circumstances must be assessed for any cancellation.

Judgment

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the condition/observation i.e. in case, the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the bail granted, in the case in hand shall deemed to be dismissed without further notice imposed vide order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad (Annexure P-3) while granting bail to the petitioner in FIR No.450 dated 08.09.2020 registered under Sections 20-61-85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, Haryana as well as the order dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.450 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, Haryana came to be registered against the petitioner with the allegations that 1 Kg 534 Gms of Ganja had been recovered from her. The copy of the said FIR is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.

3. The petitioner sought the concession of bail and was granted the same by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) with the following observations:-

“It is made clear that in case, the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the bail granted, in the case in hand shall deemed to be dismissed without further notice.”

4. Thereafter, an FIR No.207 dated 14.04.2022 under Sections 20/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, Haryana came to be registered against one Hamida from whom the recovery of 3 Kgs 770 Gms of Ganja was effected. The copy of the said FIR is annexed as Annexure P-4 to the petition. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of the said Hamida. Hamida was granted bail vide order dated 06.07.2022. The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2023 and was granted bail on 08.05.2023 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, Haryana.

5. An FIR No.378 dated 03.07.2022 under Sections 20/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, Haryana came to be registered against one Amar who was found in possession of 610 Gms of Ganja. The copy of the said FIR is annexed as Annexure P-6 to the petition. The petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of Amar. He was granted bail in this FIR vide order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the JMIC, Faridabad, Haryana.

6. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution for cancellation of bail granted in the instant FIR bearing No.450 on the grounds that the petitioner had subsequently been found to have been involved in other FIRs (Annexures P-4 & P-6). A response to the said application was filed and it was contended that she had been named in the disclosure statements of the arrested accused at the instance of the Investigating Agency. On the basis of the respective pleadings of both the parties, the regular bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) was cancelled on the ground that there was a condition for automatic cancellation of bail in para 7 of the order. The copy of the order cancelling bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.10.2022 is annexed as Annexure P-8 to the petition.

7. The condition imposed vide order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby the bail has been cancelled are under challenge in the present petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the condition imposed in the order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) was contrary to the settled proposition of law and in fact, no condition for automatic cancellation of bail could be imposed while granting bail. There must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances to cancel the bail already granted and the same could not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. Even otherwise, mere violation of the bail conditions was not sufficient to cancel the bail but the satisfaction of the Court was necessary that the bail was req