Continuous criminal activity and violation of bail conditions while on liberty warrants cancellation of bail.

The applicant/victim filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to Respondent No. 2 (Amzad Hasan) on January 27, 2022.

The original bail was granted in connection with Crime No. 368/2020 involving serious charges under Sections 307, 324, and 149 of the IPC.

The applicant contended that Respondent No. 2 suppressed a history of 15 prior criminal cases and, since being released, has had four additional FIRs registered against him for offences including criminal intimidation, assault, and house trespass.

The respondent argued that he had not been convicted of these subsequent charges and was not hampering the trial.

1. Whether the respondent/accused violated the terms and conditions of his bail by engaging in continuous criminal activity and misusing the liberty granted to him.

2. Whether the registration of multiple FIRs subsequent to the grant of bail constitutes "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" necessitating the cancellation of bail.

The Court applied Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the power to cancel bail.

Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995), which established that while cancellation requires "cogent and overwhelming circumstances," such an order is justified if the accused misuses their liberty.

State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014), establishing that bail can be cancelled if the accused indulges in criminal activities or repeatedly engages in criminal conduct while on bail.

X v. State of Telangana (2018) to affirm that bail cannot be a license for committing further offences.

The Court observed that despite being granted liberty, Respondent No. 2 failed to abide by the conditions of his bail.

The evidence presented showed that after his release, four new criminal cases (ranging from 2022 to 2025) were registered against him at P.S. Ashoka Garden, District Bhopal.

The Court reasoned that the repetition of criminal conduct demonstrates a clear misuse of the concession granted by the judiciary.

The Court rejected the defense's plea that lack of conviction barred cancellation, holding that the sanctity of the judicial process must be protected when an accused shows a propensity to continue criminal activity while under the court's protection.

The Court held that the respondent’s conduct defeated the ends of justice.

The respondent was directed to surrender immediately before the trial court, and the trial court was ordered to issue an arrest warrant and commit him to jail.