Absence of breach of conditions and passage of time preclude cancellation of bail granted on merits.

The applicant Bank filed revision applications seeking to quash the orders dated 03.08.2019 which granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 (Shah Jayesh Dineshbhai) in connection with FIR C.R. No. 04/2009 involving allegations of cheating and siphoning off public money.

The applicant contended that respondent No. 2 was granted bail based on a statement by co-accused (Accused No. 4) that the dues would be repaid—a commitment that was breached despite undertakings.

While the Hon'ble Supreme Court eventually cancelled the bail of Accused No. 4 for non-payment, the applicant sought similar relief against respondent No. 2.

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 ought to be cancelled due to the failure of a co-accused to fulfill a repayment undertaking.

2. Whether the applicant established a breach of bail conditions or legal infirmity in the original bail order to justify judicial interference after a lapse of 13 years.

The court primarily applied Section 397 and Section 401 of the CrPC (now Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS) regarding revisionary jurisdiction.

It relied on the principles governing anticipatory bail established in *Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.* (2011) 1 SCC 694, emphasizing the balance between personal liberty and the seriousness of the offence.

The court further applied the settled legal doctrine that the "grant of bail" and "cancellation of bail" stand on different footings, requiring distinct grounds such as breach of conditions or supervening circumstances for the latter.

The court observed that the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the Sessions Court was based on a merit-based evaluation of the nature of the offence and the necessity of the accused’s presence during trial.

Crucially, the court noted that respondent No. 2 had never personally given an undertaking to pay the bank's dues, nor was such a repayment condition imposed in his specific bail order dated 21.03.2013.

The court reasoned that the failure of Accused No. 4 to honor an undertaking cannot be vicariously attributed to respondent No. 2 to warrant cancellation.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the applicant failed to prove any breach of the specific conditions imposed on respondent No. 2 over the 13-year period since the incident.

The court concluded that the Sessions Court’s order was sound, respondent No. 2 had not breached any conditions, and the long passage of 13 years further mitigated against interference.

The prayers to quash the orders of the City Sessions Judge were rejected.