Bail cannot be canceled mechanically without proof of post-grant misuse, breach of conditions, or supervening circumstances.

The applicant (original complainant) filed a complaint (I-CR No. 88/2019) against Respondent No. 2 (accused) for offences involving cheating and forgery under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

On July 22, 2019, the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2196/2019

The applicant subsequently filed the present revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking cancellation of said bail.

The applicant argued that the accused, a public servant (court clerk), had fabricated rent agreements and possessed a criminal history of eight other cases

Respondent No. 2 countered that the cited cases were primarily matrimonial disputes (Section 498-A IPC), maintenance proceedings, or pre-dated the current bail order, and that no conditions of the bail had been breached

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled based on alleged criminal antecedents and the accused's status as a public servant.

2. Whether there exist any supervening circumstances or breaches of bail conditions that warrant the revocation of the respondent's personal liberty.

The court primarily applied the principles governing the distinction between the grant and cancellation of bail.

It relied on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 to validate the initial grant of anticipatory bail

Regarding cancellation, the court applied the doctrine that bail should not be cancelled mechanically unless the order is perverse or there are "grave circumstances" or "supervening events," as established in Ajwar v. Waseem [2024 INSC 438] and Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 180

The court also emphasized the protection of personal liberty as a fundamental right under the Constitution

The Court observed that the parameters for cancelling bail are significantly more stringent than those for granting it

It found that the Sessions Judge had exercised proper discretion and provided sound reasoning in the original bail order

Critically, the applicant failed to demonstrate any "supervening circumstances," such as the accused tampering with evidence or committing new offences after the bail was granted

The Court noted that the "antecedents" highlighted by the applicant were either matrimonial in nature (Section 498-A IPC, maintenance, search warrants) or occurred prior to the grant of bail, and thus did not constitute a breach of the condition to refrain from similar criminal activity

The Court concluded that the mere status of the accused as a public servant or a general apprehension of tampering is insufficient to revoke bail without concrete evidence of misuse of liberty

Consequently, the Court answered both issues in the negative and dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, thereby upholding the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent No. 2