Bail can be canceled when the alleged offenses are serious and involve factors like potential evidence tampering and the gravity of charges, necessitating a higher criterion for granting bail.

Judgment :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. This an application challenging an order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Misc. Case No. 57 of 2025, thereby cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with GR(S) Case No. 255 of 2025 corresponding to Cyber PS/BFS, DD Case No.15 dated 06.03.2025 under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/308(2)/336(2)/336(3)/338/340 of BNS and Sections66E/66D/66 read with Section 43 of the IT Act, 2000.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners were arrested on 10.03.2025 in connection with Cyber PS/BFS, DD Case No.15 dated 06.03.2025 under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/308(2) of BNS and 66E/66D, 66 read with section 43 of IT Act, 2000. On 11.03.2025, the petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate with a prayer for PC till 24.03.2025. On the basis of such prayer, PC was allowed upto 20.03.2025 and the learned Magistrate directed to produce the petitioners on 21.03.2025. On 21.03.2025, the petitioners were again produced with a prayer for PC till 25.03.2025, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate and date was fixed for production on 25.03.2025. On 25.03.2025, the IO prayed for judicial custody of the petitioners and the next date was fixed for 03.04.2025. On 03.04.2025, the learned Magistrate allowed the prayer for bail of the petitioners. It appeared from the order that the learned Magistrate granted bail to one Ryan Iqbal and petitioner no. 4 (Yaser Iqbal) on the ground that CD appeared to be silent since 25.03.2025 and jail interrogation had already been completed on 25.03.2025 and that the bail of the other petitioners were allowed on the ground that there was no further development in investigation and whatever materials of incriminating nature had been collected at the early stage of investigation. Challenging such order granting bail, the investigating officer filed an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioners on 23.05.2025. (after 1 month 20 days from the date of granting bail). The learned Chief Judge allowed the cancellation of bail on two-fold grounds (i) The order was without any reason and (ii) The learned Magistrate had passed the order ignoring the materials on record against the parties. It was pertinent to mention that in the instant case what had escaped notice of the learned Judge was that the case was started under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4) 308(2) of BNS and 66E/66D, 66 read with Section 43 of IT Act, 2000, which specified a maximum punishment of all the offences upto 7 years. From the order dated 11.03.2025, it appeared that a prayer was made for adding Section 338, 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS to the instant case, but that was neither allowed nor rejected by the learned Magistrate. It was an admitted fact that the petitioners had not violated any condition. The petitioners never misused liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity. The petitioners had not interfered with the course of investigation and had not attempted to tamper with the evidence. There was no allegation regarding threatening of witnesses, likelihood of fleeing to another country or attempt to go underground or hide themselves beyond the reach of the sureties. The petitioners had suffered entire PC period and on the prayer of the IO, they were remanded to JC. All incriminating ma