In the criminal justice process, a constant duality exists between the right of the accused to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the need of the complainant or victim for a fair trial, free from the influence of powerful or malevolent accused individuals. The concept of bail, which provides the potential for mischievous or criminal elements to interfere with the trial process, is well understood in Indian culture and mythology. In some cases, individuals who have been bailed out abuse their freedom, and the cancellation of bail is a means of preventing such abuse. Judges and courts may have different perspectives on the balance between victim and accused rights, and various legal and illegal factors can influence judicial outcomes in India. While the pendulum of justice has swung from the accused to the complainants over time, due to changes in law enforcement corruption and public opinion, the ways in which accused persons navigate these changes are discussed elsewhere on this website.
Cancellation of bail is a possibility even after it has been granted, as per the provisions outlined in sections 437 and 439 CrPC
- Section 437 of CrPC — Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody.
- Section 439 of CrPC — A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.
Cancellation of granted bail typically occurs only when the accused person violates the conditions imposed by the judge who granted bail. However, there may be other circumstances not specifically outlined in the law that may warrant bail cancellation. Judges consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime and its aftermath to make this determination. Bail cancellation is just one of many legal concepts that courts in India must consider in evaluating a case. The cancellation of bail is not an automatic process, as the prosecution side must apply for it in the appropriate legal forum.
The Supreme Court has distinguished between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case and the cancellation of bail that has already been granted. The court has stated that very compelling circumstances must exist for the cancellation of granted bail, and that the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case are distinct from those involved in the cancellation of bail already granted.
Canceling bail after it has already been granted can be a challenging task for the prosecution or the complainant. While the violation of bail conditions by the accused is one ground for cancellation, other factors, such as the severity and nature of the offense, the strength of the evidence against the accused, and the accused’s standing, may also be considered. In some cases, cancellation may not be granted even when there is evidence of misconduct. The decisions in two Supreme Court cases, Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana and Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, have both been cited as precedents by lower courts.
Examples of cases where cancellation of bail was sought, but not granted, include Lt. Gen. Tejinder Singh’s application to cancel the bail of Gen. V.K. Singh, Sanjeev Nanda’s BMW case, and the IPL T20 spot-fixing case involving Sreesanth. Shakeel Noorani’s petition to cancel Sanjay Dutt’s bail in the Bombay blasts case was also rejected.
It is noteworthy that in the Sanjay Dutt case, a third party who is neither a part of the prosecution nor a complainant can request the cancellation of bail in a criminal case. This is a unique aspect of criminal cases where such interventions are permitted, but Supreme Court judgments have shown contradictions on this issue. In the Sanjay Dutt case, Justice P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan reportedly stated that the petitioner, Shakeel Noorani, should have filed an FIR if he wished to resolve his financial dispute with Sanjay Dutt rather than using this method.
This appears to conflict with the decision in Rajpal vs. Jagvir Singh, where the Allahabad High Court held that the state was not the only eligible petitioner in any bail cancellation matter. However, in R. Rathinam vs State by DSP, District Crime, it was established by a division bench of the Supreme Court that third parties can indeed file an application for cancellation of bail, reminding the court of its power to initiate suo motu proceedings. This means that it is now legal for third parties to submit such applications. It should be noted that the motives of litigants are not always transparent in such applications.
Bail cancellation is a process that can occur in some cases. For instance, in the current 2G case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) attempted to get Sanjay Chandra’s bail cancelled after he was allegedly caught discussing his case with the public prosecutor A.K. Singh. Although the CBI failed in their attempt to cancel Chandra’s bail, media reports suggest that the CBI has a strong case. Similarly, in the Uphaar cinema case, the Ansals had their bail cancelled by the Supreme Court after being accused of stealing and meddling with court documents. Vijay Sai Reddy’s bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court in the Jaganmohan Reddy disproportionate assets case, while R.K. Agrawal’s bail in the 2012 Rajya Sabha election cash-for-votes scam was cancelled in May of the current year.
However, the situation was different for S. Gopalakrishnan and V.S. Prabhakara Gupta in the Satyam Infoway corporate fraud case. The Supreme Court overruled the order of the High Court, whereby they had been granted bail, which is different from bail cancellation. This was explained in the reasoned order passed by P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, although their position seems to be in direct opposition to the legal maxim that every bail order is a final order, and that the only way to challenge a positive bail order is through an indirect way, which is to apply for cancellation of bail.
If you manage to get anticipatory bail in your 498a case, make sure to follow all the conditions imposed by the court, including not contacting your accuser/accusers directly or indirectly, and not trying to contact the public prosecutor at any time. The investigating officer will contact you when necessary, and you should not initiate contact with them except under extraordinary circumstances. Additionally, ensure that the IO can contact you at normal times, and remember not to influence the outcome of the trial in any way except through your legal defense.
Bail is granted as a matter of right in bailable cases, but it can be cancelled if the accused person is found to have unduly influenced the course of the case. Magistrates have the power to cancel bail granted by themselves in non-bailable matters, but not in bailable cases. Only a sessions court or a higher court can cancel bail in bailable cases. Furthermore, bail granted by a court can only be cancelled by a court that is equal or superior to it in the judicial hierarchy, with the proviso mentioned in the previous paragraph.
For example, a sessions court cannot cancel bail granted by a high court, and a high court cannot cancel bail granted by the Supreme Court. Finally, a single judge of the Supreme Court cannot cancel bail granted by a double bench of the same court, which also applies to high courts.