In CRL.M.C. 3884 of 2023- DEL HC- Courts can cancel bail only if either there exists supervening circumstances or there is an inherent defect in the order granting bail, says Delhi High Court while setting aside the order cancelling bail of petitioner accused under Arms Act
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma  [25-05-2023]

Read Order: Sangram Singh v State of NCT of Delhi

Simran Singh

New Delhi, June 1, 2023: The Delhi High Court has set aside the impugned order dated 25-02-2023 cancelling the bail of the petitioner in the FIR registered under Section 336, 387, 506 and 34 Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) and 25, 27, 54 and 59, Arms Act, 1959 (Arms Act) on the ground that the accused was involved in another case in FIR registered under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, stating that it was unsustainable in the eyes of law.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner impugned the order dated 25-02-2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge, (ASJ) New Delhi whereby the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled. The ASJ had previously, vide order dated 22-02-2022 had granted bail to the petitioner accused in case FIR subject to the condition that the accused would not commit any other offence or offence of similar nature. The Sessions Court was of the view that the said condition had been violated by the accused as subsequently another FIR was registered against the accused under sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act and thus the bail was liable to be cancelled.

The petitioner submitted that FIR under Sections 25, 54 and 59 Arms Act, was falsely lodged and the Sessions Court without going into the facts of the case mechanically cancelled the bail. The Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the Sessions Judge correctly cancelled the bail of the accused as the petitioner was a habitual offender. There were 5 other cases pending against the petitioner and that the regular bail application of the petitioner had also been dismissed vide order dated 08-05-2023.

The Bench stated that the jurisdiction regarding cancellation of bail was a very limited jurisdiction. It was settled law that the bail once granted could only be cancelled if there were very cogent and overwhelming supervening circumstances or if the accused had misused his liberty of bail. “The Courts can cancel the bail only if either there exists supervening circumstances or if there is an inherent defect in the order granting bail.”

The Bench noted that in the present case, while granting bail, a condition was imposed vide order dated 22-02-2022 that the petitioner would not commit any offence or offence of similar nature. However, subsequently, another FIR was registered under Section 25, 54 and 59 Arms Act.

The Court considered that simply because an FIR had been lodged, the bail granted to the accused on merits could not have been cancelled. Needless to say that the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However the impugned order cancelling the bail was silent on the facts or the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused.

The Court thus was of the view that the impugned order dated 25-02-2023 cancelling the bail could not be sustain in the eyes of law and the same was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25-02-2023 was set aside.