1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, is for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 09.04.2025, in FIR No.329 dated 30.08.2024, registered under Sections 420 IPC/318(4) BNS, 409 IPC/316(5) BNS, 506 IPC/351(3) BNS, 120-B IPC/61(2) BNS, at Police Station Tehsil Camp, District Panipat.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after having got the concession of anticipatory bail from this Court, respondent No.2 is still cheating people. Respondent No.2 entered into memorandum of understanding dated 31.05.2025 with one of the victims, namely, Ankit Garg, to escape his criminal liability and issued cheques to discharge the same knowingly that the said account is lying frozen, as has been recorded in the challan.

3. Learned State counsel, on a query, submits that till date, accused-respondent No.2 has not misused the concession of bail and there is no complaint against him of extending any threat to the petitioner or any effort on his part to hamper the investigation, with which he is duly cooperating.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, after considering a catena of the pronouncements in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, held that, “The rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice.”

6. The law regarding cancellation of bail has been expounded and reiterated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi 1978(2) SCC 411 and Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349. In Sanjay Gandhi (supra), it was held that, “Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another, It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail already granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large by permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial.” (Emphasis supplied)

7. An order rejecting the application of bail and an order of cancellation of bail are vastly different. In the case of rejecting bail, the Court has discretion to pass the order simpliciter on the ground of severity of the offence and the belief that granting the bail would result in its abuse. However, in the latter, the Court is tasked with the duty to revoke a liberty previously granted to a person, thus the same should be exercised with utmost care and circumspection and only after examining the facts and on finding supervening circumstances, which are not conducive to fair trial and unless and until it is established that the accused does not deserve to be at liberty either by reason of violation of the conditions of bail or due to the conduct which bears upon the misuse of liberty by the accused or threatening the victim or is tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses to the extent that it would vitiate the trial and lead to a miscarriage of justice. It is trite that, once the bail has been granted it should not be cancelled, further there is no scope for cancellation of bail on reappreciation of evidence.

8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ms. X vs. The State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511 finding no supervening circumstance made out to warrant the canc