A court may cancel bail granted only when serious misconduct or irrelevant factors are proven, and sufficient judicial reasoning is required for such actions.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Mishra alongwith Sri Vishvendra Singh learned counsel for the informant-applicant, Sri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ch. Dil Nisar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 Sri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material on record.

2. The instant bail cancellation application has been moved on behalf of the informant seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 vide order dated 01.01.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, District Ghaziabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7139 of 2024 (Ishant Tyagi @ Vasu Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 803 of 2023 under Sections 147 , 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 120-B, 411, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-informant submits that concerned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in spite of making specific observation in its bail order dated 01.01.2025 to the effect that the recovery of Rs. 8 lacs has been made from the possession of the opposite party no. 2 and he is the main accused, has granted bail to the opposite party no. 2 merely on the ground that all the accused persons have been granted bail. Learned counsel further argued that the accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail were not named in the F.I.R. and from their possession nothing had been recovered. Learned counsel further argued that the opposite party no.2 is the main accused, as has also been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, and that recovery has been made from his possession to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in a very casual manner, without considering the gravity of allegation, granted bail to the accused opposite party no.2. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge may be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon paragraph nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 of a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajwar Vs. Waseem and another , 2024 (10) SCC 768. Those paragraphs read as below:-

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. (Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Another (2004) 7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another(supra); Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2014)16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another(supra).

27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a