A bail cancellation application cannot be pursued in the High Court after the Sessions Court has rejected it; such challenges must follow appropriate procedural avenues and respect distinctions in law regarding bail conditions and orders.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

1.This is a Bail Cancellation Application seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No. 2, namely, Kuna Kapoor son of Vinod Kapoor by the Sessions Court vide order dated 23.12.2022.

2. The learned Sessions Court, Ghaziabad while granting bail to the opposite party No. 2 imposed a condition that the opposite party would pay a sum of Rs.42 lacs out of the outstanding amount of Rs.4 crores and 37 lacs to the applicant/first informant within two months.

3. The bail cancellation was sought by the applicant herein by moving a bail cancellation application before the Sessions Court, Ghaziabad on the ground that the conditions imposed by the Court of Sessions for grant of bail had not been complied with inasmuch as the amount of Rs.42 lacs as undertaken by the opposite party No. 2 to be deposited had not been deposited and only a sum of Rs.4 lacs was deposited that too during the pendency of the bail cancellation application.

4. The leaned Sessions Court vide order dated 10.9.2024 rejected the bail cancellation application placing reliance upon the various decisions of the Apex Court.

5. The applicant/first informant had approached this Court with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to cancel the bail granted to opposite party No. 2 by setting aside the order dated 10.9.2024 passed by Shri Nishant Maan, Addl. District Judge/FTC-2, Ghaziabad in Bail Cancellation Application No. 178 of 2023 (Yogesh Kumar Garg versus Kunal Kapur) in connection with FIR No. 472 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 & 120B IPC, PS-Kotwali, District Ghaziabad."

6. This Court vide order dated 11.12.2024 had made a specific query from the learned counsel for the applicant to the effect as to whether after rejection of the bail cancellation application by the Sessions Court, a bail cancellation application would lie before this Court under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. or the applicant herein may pursue remedies against the order dated 10.9.2024 rejecting the bail cancellation application before the appropriate forum, the learned counsel for the applicant sought time to address on the said aspect.

7. I have heard Shri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant/first informant in support of the bail cancellation application as also Shri S. K. Rai, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent and have perused the records.

8. Shri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. to submit that the power to cancel bail already granted has been conferred to the Court of Sessions as also to the High Court. In the case at hand, the Sessions Court has refused to cancel the bail granted by it to the opposite party No. 2 and as such, the bail cancellation application can be considered by this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. He accordingly contends that the instant bail cancellation application before the Court is maintainable. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Himanshu Sharma versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 (4) SCC 222 for the proposition that bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail the accused has flouted the conditions of bail order. Reliance is also p