Anticipatory bail can’t be cancelled on mere allegations: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the seriousness of the offence by itself is not a ground for seeking anticipatory bail’s cancellation, once an accused is found entitled to the concession and has complied with the conditions.

The assertion came in a case where the accused were allegedly impersonating as ED officials, leading to the registration of an FIR in the matter in July 2023 at a police station in Nuh district. Taking up the matter, the Bench made it clear that cancellation of bail stood on a footing entirely different from its initial grant.

“It is well settled that the cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from the initial grant of bail, Justice Sumeet Goel asserted, while dismissing a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. Referring to the facts of the case in hand, Justice Goel asserted allegations regarding threats and pressure were primarily based on complaints made by the petitioner-complainant. However, no material was placed on record to prima facie establish that the respondent-accused had influenced witnesses or obstructed the course of justice in the pending trial.

“In the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing material showing violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty by respondent-accused, this court does not find any justification to exercise the extraordinary power of cancellation of anticipatory bail”.  The accused in the matter was represented by advocate Nikhil Ghai.

The Bench added there was nothing on record to suggest that the respondent-accused misused the concession of bail. “It is trite law that anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled merely on re-appreciation of facts already considered at the time while granting the same unless there is abuse of the liberty so granted”.

The court noted that the FIR in the case was lodged on May 16, 2023, following which investigation ensued. The accused was granted interim anticipatory bail on July 20, 2023, which was later confirmed on September 20, 2023. Even the State did not allege any misuse of bail.

“It is neither the stand of the State that the respondent-accused have misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted by this Court by threatening/intimidating the witnesses or by trying to influence the investigation/trial etc.,” Justice Goel asserted.

Refusing to interfere with the earlier order, the court also rejected the argument that the anticipatory bail order suffered from non-application of mind. “The order passed by this Court is a well-reasoned speaking order and cannot be said to be suffering from vice of non-application of judicial mind,” Justice Goel asserted, adding that no case was made out to show jurisdictional overreach or improper exercise of discretion.

“In the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing material showing violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty by respondent-accused, this court does not find any justification to exercise the extraordinary power of cancellation of anticipatory bail,” the court concluded.