Bail cannot be cancelled merely on a misinterpretation of Supreme Court directions absent proven breach.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Mangaldeep Rice Mill, had received 38,241.20 quintals of paddy for milling during 2012–13. After applying the agreed 67% conversion rate, he was required to deposit 25,621.6040 quintals of custom-milled rice by 31 December 2014. He deposited only 21,600 quintals, leading to an allegation of embezzlement of ₹87,09,024.76 in respect of the shortfall.

Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 66 of 2015 was registered for offences under Sections 409, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on 10 July 2015, and his bail-bonds were accepted by the trial court on 16 July 2015.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken under Sections 409 and 420 IPC on 30 March 2016.

The Supreme Court, while disposing of connected special leave petitions on 28 February 2017, declined to cancel the existing anticipatory bail/bail but imposed additional conditions, including furnishing or renewing bank guarantees within one month, failing which the bail would stand cancelled.

The District Manager of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation thereafter sought cancellation of the petitioner’s bail-bond. By order dated 7 July 2017, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate cancelled the bail-bond and directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant.

Whether the trial court was justified in cancelling the petitioner’s bail-bond merely on the basis of the Supreme Court’s order dated 28 February 2017, without recording any failure to comply with its conditions?

Whether the cryptic order cancelling bail and directing issuance of a non-bailable warrant suffered from non-application of judicial mind and warranted interference under Section 482 CrPC?

The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court’s order dated 28 February 2017 governed the petitioner’s bail: it expressly declined to cancel the anticipatory bail/bail but modified it by adding conditions, including furnishing or renewing the required bank guarantee within one month, with cancellation arising only upon failure to comply; non-appearance when required could also constitute a ground for cancellation after the trial court was satisfied of such failure.

Cancellation of bail is a serious curtailment of personal liberty and cannot be ordered through a cryptic or mechanical order unsupported by a finding of breach of bail conditions or disobedience of a binding judicial direction.

The Supreme Court’s order did not direct automatic or suo motu cancellation of the bail-bonds. Rather, it preserved the existing bail and made it conditional, particularly upon furnishing or renewing the bank guarantee within the prescribed period.

The BSFC did not allege that the petitioner had failed to furnish or renew the bank guarantee, misused the liberty of bail, failed to cooperate with the investigation or trial, or violated any other condition.

Consequently, the trial court had no identified breach upon which cancellation could be based. Its six-line order merely relied on the Supreme Court’s order without examining its operative directions or recording reasons for cancellation.

Since cancellation directly affected the petitioner’s personal liberty, the absence of a specific finding of non-compliance and the mechanical nature of the order demonstrated non-application of judicial mind, justifying interference under Section 482 CrPC.

The order dated 7 July 2017 cancelling the petitioner’s bail-bond and directing issuance of a non-bailable warrant was therefore quashed and set aside. The bail-bond previously furnished by the petitioner was restored, and the application under Section 482 CrPC was allowed.