The High Court of Punjab and Haryana while allowing a petition filed challenging the order of cancellation of bail held that a mere violation of a bail condition would not be enough to cancel bail and there must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary to cancel the bail once granted.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 20 of the NDPS Act with the allegations that around 1.5 Kg of Ganja had been recovered from her. The petitioner was granted bail. Later, two other FIRs were registered under the NDPS Act in which the name of the petitioner came in the disclosure statement and she was arrayed as an accused again. An application was moved by the prosecution for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner on the ground that she had subsequently been found to have been involved in other FIRs and been named in the disclosure statements of the arrested accused. The regular bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that there was a condition for automatic cancellation of bail. Thus, the present petition has been filed challenging the order of cancellation of bail.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the condition imposed in the order was contrary to the settled proposition of law and no condition for automatic cancellation of bail could be imposed while granting bail. It is further contended that there must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances to cancel the bail already granted and the same could not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. It is argued that a mere violation of the bail conditions was not sufficient to cancel the bail but the satisfaction of the Court was necessary that the bail was required to be cancelled after examining various factors.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the condition for automatic cancellation of bail had rightly been imposed in the order. It is further contended that pursuant to the grant of bail to the petitioner, she had been found to be involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act itself, and due to this reason the application for cancellation was filed and the bail granted to petitioner was cancelled and as the condition had rightly been imposed, the subsequent cancellation of bail could not be faulted.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that in Godson Versus State of Kerala, the court stated that merely because of the reason that such a condition was imposed while granting bail to the accused, that would not result in the cancellation of bail automatically. This is particularly because, since the order of cancellation of bail is something that affects the personal liberty of a person, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless there are reasons justifying or warranting such an order, the bail already granted cannot be cancelled and while considering an application to cancel the bail on the ground of non-compliance of the conditions, the court has to consider the question whether the alleged violation amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or as to whether it affects the trial of the case in which the accused is implicated.
The court further observed in Abdul Lathif @ Shokkari Lathif Versus State of Kerala, the court stated that even in a case where the accused has committed a crime while on bail, the court has to consider whether the crime is of such a grave nature that it amounts to a supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of bail and for that, there has to be a preliminary assessment of the allegations with respect to the subsequent crime.
The court held that no condition for the automatic cancellation of bail can be imposed while granting bail and the only condition that can be imposed is that the Investigating Agency/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail which would be adjudicated upon in accordance with law. The court further held that bail once granted cannot be cancelled automatically and in a mechanical manner. There must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary to cancel the bail once granted. A mere violation of the bail conditions would not be sufficient to cancel the bail. The Court must be satisfied that it is necessary to cancel the same keeping in view various factors. In the instant case, however, the bail has been cancelled automatically without examining any circumstances whatsoever one of which would have been that in the two other cases registered against the petitioner, she had been granted the concession of bail prior to her bail being cancelled in the instant case. In light of the above, while setting aside the condition imposed in the bail order, the court granted the concession of Bail to the accused.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Rajiya vs. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Case No.: CRM-M-35903-2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Kunal Dawar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Goel
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
