CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled casually and demands the existence of strong, cogent reasons, clearly exceeding vague or speculative assertions.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that a plea for cancellation of bail could not succeed in the absence of demonstrable misuse of liberty or any attempt by the accused to interfere with the due course of justice.
The Bench asserted that “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted”.
Making it clear that no straitjacket formula existed for deciding the issue, Justice Moudgil ruled that the determination involved a delicate balancing of factors such as the nature of the offence, the severity of punishment, and the prima facie view of the accused person’s involvement.
Citing the guiding principles required to be followed while considering the cancellation of bail, Justice Moudgil asserted that the factors to be taken into consideration included indulgence in similar criminal activity post-release, attempt to tamper with evidence, threatening of witnesses, fleeing from investigation, or attempts to evade sureties.
“Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail cannot be interfered with,” the Bench observed.
The court also drew strength from the Supreme Court’s verdict in the case of “Bhuribai versus the State of Madhya Pradesh”, which emphasised that cancellation of bail could not be treated akin to disciplinary proceedings and should not be invoked merely on perceived indiscipline or subjective dissatisfaction with the earlier bail order.
Reinforcing that bail remained a matter of personal liberty and was not to be interfered with lightly, the Court observed: “Bail, while a right, is not absolute. But unless the accused violates conditions or engages in conduct that hampers the investigation or administration of justice, there is no ground to interfere.”
The ruling came in a case where the complainant was seeking the cancellation of regular bail granted to accused in October 2022 by Rohtak Sessions Judge in a cheating and forgery case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.
Justice Moudgil observed the petitioner could not substantiate allegations of misuse of bail with credible or corroborated material. The State, the court added, had not supported claims that the accused were either evading investigation or non-cooperative—circumstances that would have otherwise justified state-initiated action for cancellation.