The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that no condition for automatic cancellation of bail can be imposed while granting bail.
The Court was deciding a petition under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking to set aside the condition/observation i.e., “in case, the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the bail granted, in the case in hand shall deemed to be dismissed without further notice” imposed vide an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held, “A perusal of the judgments referred to hereinabove would show that no condition for the automatic cancellation of bail can be imposed while granting bail. The only condition that can be imposed is that the Investigating Agency/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail which would be adjudicated upon in accordance with law. In fact, bail once granted cannot be cancelled automatically and in a mechanical manner. There must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary to cancel the bail once granted.”
The court noted that merely breaching the bail conditions wouldn’t be enough grounds for bail cancellation. Instead, the court must be convinced of the necessity to cancel it, taking into account various factors.
Advocate Kunal Dawar represented the petitioner, while DAG Rajiv Goel represented the respondent.
Case Background:
The petitioner/accused faced an FIR under Section 20 of the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act, 1985, alleging the recovery of 1 kg 534 gm of Ganja from her. She obtained concessional bail, granted by the Trial Court with the aforementioned observation. Subsequently, another person faced an FIR under Sections 20, 61, and 85, with the recovery of 3 kgs 770 gm of Ganja. The petitioner’s name emerged in the disclosure statement of that person.
The petitioner was arrested while the other person mentioned in the disclosure statement was granted bail. Additionally, the petitioner’s name surfaced in the disclosure statement of another accused, who also received bail. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application seeking the cancellation of bail, citing the petitioner’s involvement in other FIRs. Following arguments from both sides, the regular bail granted to her was revoked because the order contained a condition for automatic cancellation of bail. Consequently, this condition was contested before the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard noted, “Coming back to the facts of the instant case, when the petitioner was granted the concession of bail, a condition was imposed that his bail would be deemed to be dismissed in case he was found to be involved in cases of a similar nature in future. It was in pursuance to the said order, that the impugned order 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) has been passed cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner.”
In this specific case, the Court noted that the bail was automatically revoked without considering any circumstances. One such circumstance, among others, is that the petitioner had previously been granted bail in two other cases before the cancellation of bail in the current case.
“… the observation made in the order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) which reads as “It is made clear that in case, the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the bail granted, in the case in hand shall deemed to be dismissed without further notice.” would be substituted with the following observations as “it is made clear that in case the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the prosecution/Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before the appropriate Court which shall be adjudicated upon in accordance with law”, ordered the Court.
Thus, the High Court specified that the prosecution or Investigating Agency is free to submit an application for bail cancellation if deemed necessary, and the relevant court will then adjudicate upon it in accordance with the law.