Anticipatory bail can be canceled based on subsequent violent conduct, reflecting misuse of the privilege and increasing risks of evidence tampering.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, in the case stemming from FIR No.154 dated 20.06.2020 registered under Sections 307 , 324, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘ IPC ’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter ‘Arms Act’) at Police Station Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar, has been cancelled.

2. The FIR(supra) was registered against the petitioner while a cross- version was got registered by him against the complainant party vide GD No.24 dated 03.07.2020 under Sections 326 , 325, 324, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC . Subsequently, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which was granted vide order dated 04.11.2020 (Annexure P-3) and made absolute vide order dated 16.11.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Court below. A compromise was also affected between the parties and the parties moved petition bearing no. CRM-M-29420-2020 and CRM-M-27723-2020, in order to have the FIR(supra) and DDR(supra) quashed, respectively. During the pendency of the said petitions, FIR No. 66 dated 20.04.2021 u/s 302, 341, 148, 149 was registered against respondent No.2-complainant and his accomplices, at Police Station Kathu Nangal (Annexure P-5), for the murder of the son of the petitioner. Consequently, the anticipatory bail granted to Bhupinder Singh, an accomplice of respondent No.2, was cancelled vide order dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, FIR No. 33 dated 21.03.2022 under Sections 307 , 34 and Section 25 Arms Act was registered at Police Station Kathu Nangal (Annexure P-8), against the petitioner, at the instance of the complainant party, for causing injuries to them. In view of the same, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled vide impugned order dated 05.09.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Court below has fallen into grave error by cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, by means of a non-speaking, cryptic order. FIR No.33 was filed against the petitioner merely as a counterblast to FIR No.66 registered by him. The incident qua which FIR(supra) was registered had occurred two years prior to the registration of FIR No.33, and the two are unrelated. As such, the bail granted to the petitioner cannot be cancelled merely because an FIR was registered against him subsequent to the grant of bail. In fact, the chargesheet is yet to be presented in the case stemming from FIR no.33. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Janbaz Ahmad Dass vs. Union Territory of J&K 2023(2) Cri.CC 55 and the Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Mubin and others 2012(6)R.C.R.(Criminal) 784. Finally, without placing the relevant order on the record, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already obtained bail from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case stemming from FIR No.33.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the learned trial Court has correctly cancelled the bail of the petitioner as he did not abide by the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The FIR bearing no. 33 was registered against the petitioner because, on 20.03.2022, using armed weapons, he and his accomplices attempted to commit murder of respondent No.2. As such, no interference by this Court is merited.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner was granted bail in the ca