Failure to comply with anticipatory bail conditions justifies cancellation of bail.

The de facto complainant alleged that he had formed M/s. Medinipur Himghar (Pvt.) Ltd. with the accused persons, who were its Directors and equal shareholders.

It was alleged that Basudeb Samanta, who managed the company, had forged documents and made his wife and sons shareholders without the knowledge of the other Directors.

On an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an FIR was registered as Chandrakona (T) Police Station Case No. 455/2019 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC by the Sessions Court on 10 February 2020, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

During investigation, the State alleged that the petitioners failed to cooperate, did not produce original company documents despite notices under Section 91(1) CrPC, and failed to comply with the conditions of anticipatory bail.

The Sessions Court consequently cancelled their anticipatory bail, except that of Protima Samanta, and the petitioners challenged that order before the High Court.

Whether the application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the cancellation of anticipatory bail was maintainable?

Whether the petitioners’ alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation and non-compliance with the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC constituted sufficient grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail?

Whether the Sessions Court’s order cancelling the petitioners’ anticipatory bail required interference in revision/inherent jurisdiction?

The Court applied Section 438(2) CrPC, which permits the Court granting anticipatory bail to require the accused to make themselves available for interrogation, refrain from influencing witnesses, and comply with other appropriate conditions.

Section 439(2) CrPC empowers the High Court or Court of Session to direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody.

Section 91(1) CrPC authorises the investigating officer to require production of documents necessary for investigation.

The Court further held that the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to examine the legality of a bail-cancellation order where necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

Non-compliance with material conditions of anticipatory bail, particularly failure to cooperate with investigation despite notice, constitutes a valid ground for cancellation.

The High Court found that the petitioners had been specifically required to produce original company records, including the memorandum and articles, ROC documents, share-transfer papers and resolution books, so that the investigating officer could obtain expert examination of the signatures and handwriting.

Although the petitioners claimed that the documents had been lost, the Court considered the alleged loss doubtful because the complaint regarding the loss was lodged only in 2018, several years after the alleged loss in 2010.

The Court also found it inconsistent that the petitioners had undertaken to produce the documents but subsequently failed to do so.

Even if the documents were unavailable, the petitioners were expected to attend the police station and cooperate with the investigation.

Their failure to do so despite notices under Section 91(1) CrPC amounted to non-compliance with the anticipatory-bail conditions.

Although the Court found no material establishing that the petitioners had threatened witnesses, such proof was unnecessary where non-cooperation with the investigation independently justified cancellation.

Accordingly, the Sessions Court’s decision was neither illegal nor perverse.

It upheld the cancellation of the petitioners’ anticipatory bail on the ground that they had failed to comply with the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC and had not cooperated with the investigation despite notice.

The revisional application, C.R.R. 3433 of 2024, was dismissed; connected applications were disposed of, any interim order was vacated, and the petitioners’ request for stay of the judgment to enable them to approach a higher forum was rejected.