The court ruled that mere registration of a subsequent offence does not justify automatic bail cancellation; a thorough inquiry into supervening circumstances is necessary.

ORDER :

1. This application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent vide order dated 27.07.2022 in M.Cr.C. No.31685 of 2022 in relation to Crime No.515/2021 in which offence under Section 376(3) of INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, was registered at Police Station- Churhat, District-Sidhi.

2. This application for cancellation of bail has been filed mainly on the ground that against the respondent, after granting bail by this Court in the aforesaid offence, another crime has been registered vide Crime No.99/2023 for offence under Sections 294 , 323, 506, 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , and as such, misusing the liberty granted by the Court, he has violated the terms and conditions mentioned under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

3. However, I am not convinced with the grounds raised in this application and in fact, the bail granted to the respondent in M.Cr.C. No.31685 of 2022 cannot be cancelled only because vide Crime No.99/2023, an offence has been registered against him subsequently. The Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 , considering the aspect as to under what circumstances, the bail granted in a non-bailable offence, can be cancelled by the Court has observed as under:-

“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.”

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is clear that mere registration of offence against the respondent to whom bail was granted by the Court, cannot be made the sole ground for cancellation of bail.

4. Similarly, in a case of Rajiya Vs. State of Haryana in CRM-M-35903-2023 decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the said Court considering various judgments of Supreme Court and also of different High Courts has observed as to what should be the yardstick and criteria for cancellation of bail. It is observed by the Court that merely because after granting bail, a crime has been registered against a person to whom bail was granted and if there was no any such condition imposed while granting him bail, then that cannot be the sole ground for cancelling the bail. Relying upon several judgments of Supreme Court as well as High Courts, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, has observed as under:-

“11. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to examine to the various judgments referred to by the counsel for the petitioner and the relevant extracts of the same are as under:-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra and another , 1999 AIR (Supreme