Bail should not be cancelled mechanically for technical breaches of conditions. Cancellation requires demonstrating cogent, overwhelming supervening circumstances that jeopardize a fair trial. Once a charge-sheet is filed, courts must balance ongoing compliance requirements against the liberty of the accused while ensuring conditions remain necessary.

ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Notice has been served qua respondent No.2 but none appear for the respondent No.2.

2. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. By way of this application, a prayer is made to quash and set aside the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Idar, Sabarkantha in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.678 of 2024 as also the execution, implementation and further operation of the said order till the applicant is released on bail.

4. The applicant is the original accused of the FIR registered as I-C.R. No.0040 of 2014 with Kheroj Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 7, 13(1) (D) (1)(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. The applicant is before this Court challenging the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Idar, Sabarkantha in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.678 of 2024 whereby the bail granted came to be cancelled by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.09.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.12979 of 2023 came to be cancelled.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Nayan L. Gupta submitted that the cancellation of bail by the Sessions Judge was on the premise that the applicant has failed to follow condition No.6.[f] in the order dated 06.09.2023 granting bail to the applicant. Condition No.6.[f] is reproduced herein for ready reference :-

“[f] mark his presence before the concerned police station in the first week of every month till the trial is over;”

7. Learned advocate Mr. Nayan L. Gupta submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has noted that the accused had appeared at the Police Station by referring to the attendance sheet lastly on 04.06.2024 and thereafter, has failed to appear before the police and thereby, considered it as a breach of conditions of the order of granting bail. It is further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant has not marked his presence before the concerned Police Station after the condition being laid by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 06.09.2025. It is further submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge itself reflects that from 10.09.2024 to 03.01.2025, the accused had marked his presence before the Kheroj Police Station. It is further submitted that qua the applicant another FIR was filed on 07.06.2024 and in that matter, the applicant was released on bail on 24.11.2025. whereas the bail granted by the High Court came to be cancelled on 13.01.2025. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet of the matter where the applicant was granted bail was filed on 26.06.2024 in ACB Case No.1 of 2023. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was granted liberty by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench to even delete / modify / and / or relax any of the conditions in accordance with the law.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Nayan L. Gupta submitted that once the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court, then that matter is in seisen and the concerned Judge should not insist of the accused to simultaneously mark his presence before the Investigating Officer or the Police Station concerned or in any other police station concerned. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to take into notice that the applicant was granted bail in connection the