Anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled solely on the gravity of the offence without evidence of misused liberty.

The Petitioner, a Russian company, filed an FIR alleging they were cheated of ₹6,05,99,675.58 through forged documents and false representations regarding the supply of aviation and automobile parts

Investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) revealed that the funds were transferred to M/s Mangalam Traders and subsequently diverted through multiple layers of beneficiary accounts

Respondent No. 2, Sumit Ahluwalia, allegedly received ₹1,04,92,000 from M/s AJ Steel and ₹15,50,000 from M/s AV Global

The Respondent was granted anticipatory bail by the Ld. Sessions Court on March 29, 2025, on the grounds that he was not a first-layer beneficiary and had not directly induced the Complainant

The Petitioner sought cancellation of this bail, arguing the Respondent was enjoying misappropriated funds and that the bail was granted by ignoring material evidence

1. Whether the order granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent was perverse or illegal, warranting interference/recall by the High Court

2. Whether there exist supervening circumstances or violations of bail conditions that justify the cancellation of the Respondent’s bail

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court, and Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. concerning the cancellation of bail

It relied on *Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar*, which distinguishes between the challenge to a bail order on merits (recall) and challenge based on post-bail conduct (cancellation)

The court further applied the criteria from *Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi*, emphasizing that bail may be set aside if it is perverse, illegal, or fails to consider the gravity of the offence and the nature of accusations

The Court analyzed the distinction between "recall" of bail (based on inherent defects in the order) and "cancellation" (based on misuse of liberty).

It observed that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of bail conditions or non-cooperation by the Respondent; rather, the record indicated the Respondent joined the investigation on twelve separate dates

On the merits of the bail order, the Court found that the Ld. Sessions Judge had exercised judicial mind by noting that the Respondent had no direct dealings with the Complainant and that the financial entries in question were already documented, reducing the immediate need for custodial interrogation

The Court reasoned that the mere seriousness of the offence or the quantum of money involved does not automatically render a bail order perverse if the lower court has conducted a reasoned analysis of the accused's specific role and layers of involvement

Since no supervening circumstances or violations of conduct were proved, the prayer for cancellation was rejected.

The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that a re-appreciation of merits is not warranted when the lower court's findings are based on a plausible judicial view