ORAL ORDER

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for Respondent No.1- State and learned Advocate, Mr. Dagli, waives for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5-original accused.

1. By way of this application, filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, ‘the Code’), the applicant-first informant seeks to assail the order dated 31.03.2021, passed in CR.M.A. No. 53 of 2021, by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhachau (‘trial Court’, in brief), whereby, the trial Court rejected the application for cancellation of bail of the accused persons granted by the different orders of this Court in connection with the offence registered with Lakadiya Police Station, District: Kachchh-East- Gandhidham, being CR No. 11993011200334 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324, 325, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 114 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the G.P. Act.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 committed the breach of condition Nos. (a) and (b) of the respective orders passed by this Court. It was submitted that Respondents-accused misused their liberty and have also acted in a manner prejudicial to the case of the prosecution, as they have indulged into another offence for which an FIR being C.R. No. 11993011210010 of 2021, under Sections 323, 294(b) etc. of the IPC has been lodged with Lakadiya Police Station. It was also submitted that this Court has not taken into consideration the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, while granting bail to the respondents- accused. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is an unreasoned order and hence, this application be allowed.

2.1 Learned APP adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant and prayed that the appropriate orders may be passed in the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, appearing for learned Advocate, Mr. Dagli, for the respondent-accused supported the impugned orders by submitting that only on the ground of registration of an FIR, the bail cannot be canceled. It was submitted that the second FIR is filed by the complainant side only with a view to pressurize the respondents-accused..

He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the impugned order, what appears is that cancellation of bail is sought only on the ground that the respondents accused misused their liberty and tried to threaten the witnesses for which another FIR is already filed against them. In the considered opinion of this Court, filing of an FIR cannot be a sole ground to cancel the bail already granted by a competent Court to the concerned accused persons. As to whether, the respondents-accused have committed the offence, as alleged in the second FIR, can only be determined at the end of trial. Therefore, only because an FIR is filed against them, the bail already granted to the respondents-accused cannot be canceled, mechanically. In the present case, learned advocate for the petitioner failed to point out any supervening circumstances.

5. In the case of ‘P. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another’, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 552, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enumerated the circumstances, when bail could be canceled and one of the conditions stated therein is the misuse of the liberty granted to the petitioner by the Court by involving himself in a subsequent crime.

6. In the case of ‘Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118, the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to observe that the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of canceling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts are requiring such cancellation. In Paragraph-16, the Hon’ble Apex Co