High Court: Bail Cancelled for Abuse of Liberty Evidenced by Multiple Post-Release FIRs (Ss. 447, 380, 332, 353, 384 IPC) and Evasion of Justice - 2024-12-03

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

High Court Revokes Bail for Accused Duo Following Supreme Court Remand, Cites Grave Misuse of Liberty and Evasion of Justice

Jaipur: In a significant ruling, a High Court has cancelled the bail previously granted to accused individuals Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid . The decision came after the Supreme Court of India remitted the matter for fresh consideration, highlighting a series of alleged post-release misconducts, including new criminal charges and persistent evasion of judicial proceedings. The complainant, Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, had sought the cancellation, arguing the accused were abusing their liberty.

Background: Initial Bail and Challenged Liberty

Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid were granted bail by the High Court on March 22, 2022. The initial grant was based on the premise that their case was triable by a Magistrate's Court, their period in judicial custody, and the anticipated length of the trial.

However, the complainant, Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, soon moved for cancellation of their bail, alleging serious misuse of liberty. This initial cancellation application was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on March 29, 2023. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8357/2023, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 1293/2024. On March 1, 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal and sent the bail cancellation plea back for a fresh hearing.

The underlying case, as per allegations, involves a property dispute where the complainant purchased a plot (No. A-56, Padam Vihar Yojana) and accused Raj Rani Mittal , along with Deepak Jangid (an accused-respondent in the broader context) and others, allegedly sold the same plot to Deepak Jangid using fabricated documents. The court noted police reports suggesting a wider racket involved in creating fake property documents for vacant plots.

Complainant Alleges Serious Post-Release Misconduct

The core of the cancellation plea rested on the alleged post-release conduct of Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid . The complainant detailed several incidents:

FIR No.324/2022 ( Mansarovar , Jaipur): Allegations of trespass, damage to CCTV cameras and a nameplate, and theft of CCTV equipment (Sections 447, 380, 427 IPC) shortly after their release on April 5, 2022.

Constant Threats: Regular threatening phone calls to the complainant, warning him against pursuing the case.

FIR No.11/2023 (Kudgaon, Karoli): Alleged assault on police personnel with the intent to free accused individuals from custody (Sections 143, 332, 353 IPC). The order noted that Sanjay and Dontesh Jangid were reportedly "actively participating" in this incident.

Property Interference: Forcible entry and damage to a boundary wall of a disputed plot, even while it was under the receivership of the SHO, Mansarovar , following an Executive Magistrate's order. This led to FIR No.73/2023 ( Mansarovar ) .

FIR No.1231/2023 ( Mansarovar , Jaipur): Allegations that one Jitendra @ Jitu , purportedly at the behest of the respondents, threatened to kill the complainant if he did not withdraw his Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court (Sections 384, 506, 120-B IPC).

FIR No.1368/2023 ( Mansarovar City South): Allegations that the respondents and others threatened the complainant's witness, Mahendra, to not testify and to withdraw his own case, failing which he would be implicated in a false case (Sections 384, 506 IPC).

Accused's Evasive Conduct During Cancellation Proceedings

The High Court meticulously documented the difficulties encountered in notifying the accused-respondents about the bail cancellation plea. Despite multiple attempts and court orders from April 2022 onwards, serving notices proved challenging, with the court expressing "anguish over the situation in which the police personnel failed to know the whereabouts of the accused-respondents." Warrants of arrest were eventually issued to secure their presence or notification. Counsel for the respondents finally appeared on August 30, 2024, after "long run efforts."

Legal Framework for Bail Cancellation

The Court underscored the established legal principles governing bail cancellation, emphasizing that it stands on a different footing from the initial grant of bail. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Bhagirath Singh Jadeja vs State of Gujarat (1984) and Daulat Ram and others versus State of Haryana (1985) , the Court reiterated that bail, once granted, should only be cancelled under "very cogent, over-whelming, aggravating or super-winning circumstances."

Such circumstances include:

* Interference with investigation or judicial proceedings.

* Attempts to evade the due course of justice.

* Reasonable grounds to believe liberty has been misused.

* Apprehension of fleeing from justice or hampering the trial.

The Court also extensively quoted the Supreme Court's decision in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP (2014) , which discusses the balance between individual liberty and societal harm, and the relevance of criminal antecedents. The judgment highlighted:

"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

Court's Rationale: Liberty Abused, Justice Impeded

The High Court found the complainant's apprehensions to be "well founded" based on the numerous post-release FIRs and the "hard task required to secure the presence of the accused."

The Court stated:

"The number of cases lodged against the respondents post their release on bail amongst which one relates to making an assault over the police party, who went to apprehend the accused giving reasonable ground to presume to this Court that the accused respondents do not deserve to retain freedom."

The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the cancellation, citing the antecedents and conduct of the accused, and the alleged involvement in a gang usurping vacant plots through forged documents. The Court found this nexus to be an aggravating factor.

Final Order: Accused to Be Taken Back into Custody

Concluding that the accused had abused the liberty granted to them, the High Court allowed the application for cancellation of bail.

The Court ordered:

* The bail granted to Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid vide order dated 22.03.2022 (in SBCRLMB No.2446/2022) is cancelled.

* Their bail bonds are forfeited.

* The trial court shall forthwith take steps to take the accused back into custody to ensure the smooth progression of further proceedings in the case.

The bench details for this specific order were not mentioned in the provided judgment text.