Bail once granted cannot be cancelled without proof of supervening circumstances or perversity in the order.

The applicant, Dilip Mehta, filed a petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2, Virendra Patel, by the Sessions Court on February 9, 2024.

The prosecution alleged that respondent No. 2 conspired to execute a forged power of attorney and agreement to sale dated January 21, 2009, by impersonating the actual landowner's identity through forged PAN and Voter ID cards.

The applicant contended that the Sessions Court failed to consider the respondent's criminal history (FIR No. 243/2011) and the fraudulent nature of the documents used to secure a decree for specific performance in a Lok Adalat.

Procedurally, the respondent was arrested on September 20, 2023, and granted bail after the final report was filed, on the grounds that the dispute appeared primarily civil in nature.

1. Whether the Sessions Court exercised its discretion in a perverse or irrational manner by granting bail while allegedly ignoring the gravity of the fraud and the respondent’s criminal antecedents.

2. Whether there exist any supervening circumstances or evidence of misuse of liberty that warrant the cancellation of the bail already granted.

The court applied Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the cancellation of bail.

It relied on the principles established globally in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [para 9], Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [para 11], and Ajwar v. Waseem [para 13]. These precedents establish that: (a) there is a distinct difference between the criteria for rejecting bail and cancelling it; (b) bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances"; and (c) cancellation is justified if the order is "perverse," "unreasoned," ignores "relevant material," or if the accused "misuses the liberty".

The High Court examined whether the Sessions Court’s order suffered from non-application of mind. It noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had indeed considered the history of civil litigation between the parties, the completion of the investigation, and the fact that the respondent is a permanent resident of Jabalpur with no immediate risk of absconding.

The court found that because both parties were actively litigating the title and the validity of the documents across various civil forums up to the Supreme Court, the Sessions Court’s observation that the matter had a "civil nature" was not perverse or irrelevant.

Furthermore, the court observed that the applicant failed to demonstrate any "supervening circumstances," such as the respondent tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or violating bail conditions post-release.

The court emphasized that the power to cancel bail must be exercised with "extreme care and circumspection" and cannot be used as a disciplinary proceeding. Consequently, the application (M.Cr.C. No. 9066/2024) was dismissed.