Case Note & Summary
The present application was filed by the original complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the original accused by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.2196/2019. The complainant alleged that the accused, a public servant and clerk in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, had fabricated and forged a rent agreement in collusion with a Notary. The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, including that the accused shall not involve himself in any offence of any nature. The complainant contended that despite this condition, the accused committed three subsequent offences, and therefore, the bail should be cancelled. The complainant also argued that the Sessions Court did not consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, citing a list of eight cases registered against him. The accused opposed the application, arguing that the subsequent FIRs were filed by the same complainant and were part of a civil dispute, and that the accused had not violated any bail condition. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that cancellation of bail is a serious matter and requires supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions. The Court noted that the accused had not been convicted in any of the subsequent cases and the allegations were yet to be proved. The Court further observed that the power to cancel bail should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of misuse of liberty. Since the complainant failed to establish any supervening circumstances or misuse of bail, the application was dismissed. The Court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail - Section 439(2) read with Section 482 CrPC - Supervening Circumstances - The applicant sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused on the ground that the accused violated the condition of not involving in any offence by committing three subsequent offences. The Court held that cancellation of bail is a serious matter and requires supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions. Mere registration of FIRs without conviction or proof of guilt is not sufficient to cancel bail. The Court found that the accused had not been convicted in any of the subsequent cases and the allegations were yet to be proved. Hence, the application was dismissed. (Paras 1-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Conditions of Bail - The Court observed that the condition imposed by the Sessions Court that the accused shall not involve in any offence of any nature is a standard condition. However, the mere filing of subsequent FIRs does not automatically lead to cancellation of bail unless there is a finding that the accused has abused the liberty or tampered with evidence. The Court emphasized that the power to cancel bail should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of misuse of liberty. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the accused should be cancelled on the ground that the accused has committed subsequent offences despite a condition not to involve in any offence.
Final Decision
The application for cancellation of anticipatory bail is dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Cancellation of anticipatory bail requires supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions
- mere registration of subsequent FIRs does not automatically warrant cancellation
- bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
