Anticipatory bail may be cancelled for prolonged unauthorised absence abroad and failure to honour a return undertaking.

The petitioner-company lodged FIR No. 437 dated 09.11.2016 at Police Station Kundli, Sonipat, alleging that the accused had falsely represented that land forming part of the “Ushay Towers” project was free from encumbrances.

Relying on these representations, the petitioner entered into an MOU dated 30.04.2012, deposited ₹50 lakhs with HUDA, paid ₹1.50 crore towards consideration, and incurred further common-area expenses of ₹72 lakhs.

Respondents No. 1 and 2, who were brothers, were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on 09.08.2018.

A police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented on 24.05.2019, and the matter remained pending at the stage of consideration of charge.

The petitioner subsequently sought cancellation of respondent No. 1’s bail, alleging that he had left India without prior permission, failed to appear before the trial Court, did not return despite an undertaking to do so by the first week of April 2025, and continued to seek exemption from personal appearance.

Whether respondent No. 1 had misused the concession of anticipatory bail by remaining abroad without prior permission of the trial Court, failing to appear, and not complying with the undertaking to return to India?

Whether the subsequent conduct of respondent No. 1 constituted sufficient supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023?

Whether the alleged compromise on the basis of which anticipatory bail was granted in 2018 could, at this stage, independently justify cancellation of bail?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning cancellation of bail and the inherent powers of the High Court.

The governing principle is that bail should be cancelled only where the accused has misused the liberty granted or where the bail order suffers from a serious infirmity resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Relying on Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana, (2020) 2 SCC 743, the Court held that cancellation may be warranted where relevant material was ignored or irrelevant material was considered while granting bail, or where subsequent conduct demonstrates misuse of the concession.

Continued absence from the jurisdiction, non-compliance with bail conditions, failure to appear before the trial Court, and conduct obstructing the progress of trial may constitute supervening circumstances justifying cancellation.

The Court declined to examine, at this stage, the petitioner’s belated and disputed allegation that anticipatory bail had originally been obtained on the basis of a false compromise.

Instead, it assessed respondent No. 1’s subsequent conduct.

The record showed that respondent No. 1 had remained outside India for a considerable period without obtaining prior permission from the trial Court, had not appeared despite the case remaining pending at the stage of charge since 24.05.2019, and had failed to return despite an undertaking recorded on 12.12.2024 that he would return in the first week of April 2025.

Although the Court observed that the trial Court should decide the pending exemption application expeditiously, it held that the pendency of such an application could not operate as an indefinite licence to remain abroad and avoid participation in the proceedings.

Considered cumulatively, the continued absence, breach of the requirement of prior permission, failure to honour the undertaking, and resulting delay in the trial demonstrated misuse of the concession of anticipatory bail and constituted sufficient supervening circumstances for cancellation.

The anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 1, Neeraj Narula, by order dated 09.08.2018 in CRM-M-13441-2018 was cancelled on account of his continued absence from India, non-compliance with the requirement of prior permission, failure to return pursuant to the undertaking, and the resulting impediment to the progress of the trial.

Respondent No. 1 was directed to surrender before the trial Court within two weeks, failing which the trial Court was directed to take appropriate steps to secure his presence.

The challenge was restricted to respondent No. 1; no cancellation relief was sought or granted against respondent No. 2.