Bail once granted cannot be cancelled mechanically, says Supreme Court in landmark ruling

June 5, 2025 by News Desk

Sanjeev Sirohi

In a significant reaffirmation of well-settled legal principles governing the cancellation of bail, the Supreme Court of India, in a major development, ruled that once bail is granted, it cannot be cancelled mechanically unless supervening circumstances justify such action.

In a learned, laudable, logical, and latest judgment titled Sanjay Kumar Jangid & Anr vs Mukesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 2381 of 2025 (arising from SLP (Crl) No. 1632 of 2025), the apex court, while exercising its criminal appellate jurisdiction, minced no words in holding that bail cannot be withdrawn without cogent grounds. This judgment was pronounced as recently as on May 2, 2025.

This ruling came while the Court was setting aside the December 3, 2024, order of the Rajasthan High Court which had cancelled the bail of two accused in a forgery and cheating case. The Supreme Court reinstated the appellants’ bail. Rightly so.

At the very outset, this robust, rational, and recent judgment authored by the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta begins with the statement in para 1: “Leave granted.”

As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 2: “The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 73/2022 wherein the High Court cancelled the regular bail which was granted to the appellants vide order dated 22.03.2022.”

Briefly stated, the Bench elaborates in para 3: “Brief facts of the case are that the present matter pertains to FIR No. 854/2021 dated 15.11.2021 registered at P.S. Mansarovar, Jaipur City under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 447 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), lodged at the behest of Mukesh Kumar, i.e., respondent no. 1 herein, against Raj Rani Mittal, Deepak Jangid, Rahul Jangid, Dontesh Jangid i.e., appellant no. 2 herein, and others.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench states in para 4: “The instant appellants were arrested on 03.02.2022 during the investigation, and thereafter, the chargesheet was filed on 21.03.2023 for the offences mentioned in the FIR. On the basis of the investigation, it was found that as a part of the housing scheme named Padam Vihar, Plot No. A-56 was allotted to respondent no. 1 by the society on 29.11.2014. The respondent no. 1 was not regularly residing at the said plot, and on one of the occasions when he was visiting the said plot, he came to know that one Deepak Jangid, who lives near the said plot, in connivance with one Raj Rani Mittal, had hatched a conspiracy and dishonestly got the said plot registered in his name and submitted fake documents to the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA).”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5: “It was further alleged that the accused persons, in connivance with the JDA officials, got the lease issued in their name. The modus operandi adopted by the accused persons was that they, with the help of one Jitendra Kumar Kashyap, prepared fake documents and approached Raj Rani Mittal, who was reflected to be the purported owner of the plot in question as per some old documents. Thereafter, the accused Rahul Jangid got an agreement prepared in the name of Raj Rani Mittal and Deepak Jangid dated 14.09.2021, transferring the said plot to Deepak Jangid. Further, Rahul Jangid also got another document in the nature of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) prepared, thereby appointing himself as the attorney holder of Raj Rani Mittal on 14.09.2021. The said GPA was notarized in Jaipur on 16.09.2021 in the presence of the instant appellants.”

Suffice to say, the Bench observes in para 6: “Therefore, the role that was attributed to the appellants herein was that since they were witnesses to the said GPA and also related to the other accused persons, they were an intricate part of the entire conspiracy. Another allegation against the instant appellants is that it was in their presence that the registry of the said plot was done on 19.10.2021, based on forged documents.”

Truth be told, the Bench lays bare in para 7: “The present appellants were granted regular bail by the High Court, vide order dated 22.03.2022, mainly based on the ground that the trial may take a long time to conclude and it is just and proper to release the accused persons (appellants herein) on bail in the meanwhile.”

As things stand, the Bench specifies in para 8: “Consequently, respondent no. 1, i.e., the complainant, filed the Bail Cancellation Application No. 73/2022 under Section 439(2) of the CrPC seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to the appellants. The High Court, vide order dated 29.03.2023, dismissed the bail cancellation application.”

Do note, the Bench records in para 9: “Aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2023, respondent no. 1 filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8357 of 2023 before this Court which, on admission, got converted into Criminal Appeal No. 1293 of 2024. This Court, vide order dated 01.03.2024, set aside the High Court’s order dated 29.03.2023 on account of it being cryptic and non-speaking and remitted the matter back to the High Court with directions to give detailed reasons for the dismissal of the bail cancellation application.”

Also, the Bench notes in para 10: “Accordingly, the Bail Cancellation Application No. 73 of 2022 preferred by respondent no. 1 was restored before the High Court for fresh consideration, wherein the High Court, vide order dated 03.12.2024, allowed the Bail Cancellation Application No. 73 of 2022 and cancelled the regular bail granted to the appellants herein, mainly on the grounds of abuse of liberty granted and post-release conduct of the appellants.”

Further, the Bench points out in para 11: “The High Court held that securing the presence of the accused before the Court had become a hard task in itself and reflects the abuse of liberty granted to the accused persons. Further, it was observed that a number of cases have been lodged against the accused persons post their release on bail, amongst which one relates to making an assault over the police party who had gone to apprehend the accused, speaks volumes about the post-bail conduct of the accused persons. The criminal antecedents of the accused were also considered as a factor in cancelling the bail.”

Needless to say, the Bench states in para 12: “Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, the appellants are before us.”

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 16: “The jurisprudence surrounding cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC is very clear as to that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to enjoy the concession of bail during the trial (Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349). The grounds for cancellation of bail as illustrated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 and reiterated in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 4 SCC 272 broadly lay down the grounds on which a bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It has also been echoed in various judgments that rejection of bail stands on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with the liberty of an individual, and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to.”

Most rationally, the Bench underscores in para 17: “A perusal of the record makes it apparent that even though multiple FIRs have been lodged against the co-accused persons after the appellants’ release on bail, i.e., on 22.03.2022, the names of the instant appellants have not been mentioned in most of these FIRs, nor has any allegation been levied against the appellants. It is only in FIR No. 11/2023 dated 23.01.2023 under Sections 143, 332, and 353 of the IPC that the appellants have been named. However, even in the said offence, after due investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 10.07.2024, wherein the appellants were not charge-sheeted. Therefore, merely because subsequent FIRs have been registered against the other co-accused persons, it does not become a valid or fair ground to seize the liberty of bail that has been extended to the appellants herein. The exercise of cancellation of bail is a strict one and needs to be executed in a restrictive manner, only when the circumstances demand it. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the instant case is not a fit one to employ the provisions of cancellation of bail and curb the appellants’ liberty.”

As a corollary, the Bench holds in para 18: “Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 is set aside. We also hereby direct expeditious disposal of the trial pending before the Court of Magistrate, in connection with FIR No. 854/2021 registered at P.S. Mansarovar, District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC, within eight months from the receipt of this order.”

Finally, the Bench concludes in para 19: “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

In conclusion, it certainly merits no reiteration that all courts must strictly heed what the Apex Court has held in this case and in prior leading judgments. Courts must always bear in mind that once bail is granted, it should not be cancelled in a mechanical or arbitrary manner unless clearly justified by supervening events. This case reinforces that principle elegantly, eloquently, and effectively.

Advocate Sanjeev Sirohi, from Meerut , Uttar Pradesh writes legal articles for The Kashmiriyat.