Court mandated that cancellation of bail requires due process, and an accused can seek bail for newly added charges without prior cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. By this common order, both the aforementioned petitions, i.e. CRM-M-33118-2025 and CRM-M-34338-2025, are being disposed of, as they have arisen out of the same FIR, i.e. FIR No.48 dated 10.02.2025, registered under Sections 318 (2), 340, 336(3) and 3(5) of BNS ( Sections 338 and 61(2) of the , 2023 added later on) at Police Station Rajendra Park, District Gurugram.

2. CRM-M-33118-2025 has been filed by the petitioner, Himanshu Yadav, aged 32 years, under Section 482 of the BNS S, seeking the concession of pre-arrest bail, on the ground that although, regular bail was granted to the petitioner on 09.05.2025, additional offences under Sections 338 and 61(2) of the , 2023 were subsequently added. However, the prayer for anticipatory bail in respect of the newly added offences was disposed of, on 10.06.2025, by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Vacation Judge, Gurugram, while observing as under:-

“Therefore, keeping in view aforesaid facts and circumstances, application in hand is disposed of with directions that if application for cancellation of bail of applicant is allowed by the learned trial Court then applicant shall not be immediately sent to custody or arrested by the police and he shall be given at least seven days notice by the investigating officer, providing opportunity to applicant to avail remedy under the law. Hence, the application stands disposed of.”

3. On the same day, i.e. 10.06.2025, an application for cancellation of bail, moved by the complainant on account of addition of new offences, i.e. Sections 338 and 61(2) of BNS , 2023, was taken up and allowed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram.

4. From the order dated 10.06.2025, it further transpires that another application had also been moved by the petitioner, Himanshu Yadav, seeking exemption from personal appearance. The said application was dismissed earlier in the day, with the Court insisting that the petitioner’s counsel appear through a proxy counsel representing the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. Directions were also issued to the accused to share his ‘live location’. Even the request for adjournment made by the proxy counsel, on the ground that petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was already pending adjudication and stood reserved for orders at 4:00 p.m., was declined.

In the latter half of the day, at about 16:06 hours, the file was again taken up, whereupon a copy of the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Court of Shri Amit Gautam, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, was produced by the Munshi of arguing counsel for the petitioner.

Despite the same, the application for cancellation of bail was allowed in its entirety, overlooking the fact that regular bail had already been granted to the petitioner in respect of the originally registered offences, i.e. Sections 340 , 336(3), 318(2) and 3(5) of the BNS , 2023.

5. Consequently, while advancing arguments in the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, having been left with no other efficacious remedy, instant petition, i.e. CRM-M-33118-2025 for anticipatory bail, has been filed qua all the offences, before this Court.

6. Counsel for the petitioner also argued that upon addition of new offences, it was not open to the complainant to seek cancellation of bail. Rather, it was incumbent upon the investigating officer to approach the Court and seek permission to arrest the accused by assigning cogent reasons justifying such necessity. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Cou