In CRL.M.C. 7246/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court restores bail in cheating & theft case, stating lack of compelling reasons for cancellation
Justice Vikas Mahajan [01-11-2023]

Read Order: Karan Kukreja V. State NCT of Delhi & Anr

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 16, 2023: The Delhi High Court has restored the bail order granted to a man who was accused of cheating, forgery, and theft. The Court ruled that the lower court had not provided any compelling reasons to cancel the bail.

The present petition was filed, seeking the quashing and setting aside of the order passed by the court of ASJ (FTC), by which the bail granted to the petitioner through an order dated 27.04.2023 in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 406/420/467/471/120B Indian Penal Code (IPC), was cancelled.

The prosecution's case, leading to the registration of the aforementioned FIR, was that the complainant had received a call from the petitioner, who was a close friend. In the call, the petitioner requested the complainant to lend his car for a couple of hours, citing a medical emergency involving his mother. Consequently, the complainant handed over his car to the petitioner. The complaint alleged that certain jewellery articles were left in the dashboard of the vehicle, which the complainant forgot to remove. According to the complainant, the petitioner did not return the car and the jewellery articles. Based on these allegations, the FIR was registered under Sections 406 IPC. The prosecution further contended that during the investigation, it was discovered that the petitioner had sold the vehicle by forging a NOC and relevant forms. Subsequently, Sections 420/467/471/120B IPC were invoked, leading to the petitioner's arrest on 12.03.2023.

The ASJ, through an order dated 27.04.2023, examined the transcript of WhatsApp chats, which indicated that the complainant had, indeed, agreed to entrust his car to the petitioner. Acknowledging the defence’s argument regarding potential false implication, the ASJ did not dismiss it lightly. As a result, the ASJ granted bail to the petitioner.

Following this, the complainant filed an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner on 27.04.2023. Through the impugned order dated 26.09.2023, the ASJ (FTC) revoked the bail granted to the petitioner primarily citing two grounds: (i) the petitioner/accused contacted the complainant, and the language used in the chats, including abuses, did not suggest an intention to genuinely settle the matter, as claimed by the petitioner; and (ii) after being granted bail, the petitioner engaged in another criminal activity, leading to the registration of another FIR under Sections 323/341/506 IPC against him.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan noted that established legal principles require compelling and substantial circumstances to justify the cancellation of previously granted bail. Typically, grounds for cancellation of bail, though not exhaustive, include interference or attempts to interfere with the due administration of justice, evasion or attempts to evade due course of justice, or abuse of the granted concession in any form. The court's satisfaction, based on the material presented, regarding the possibility of the accused absconding is another valid reason for cancelling bail. However, the bench emphasized that the cancellation of bail should not be done mechanically. Instead, it should be carefully considered, taking into account whether any intervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial, making it inappropriate for the accused to retain freedom through the granted concession during the trial.

The bench determined that the ASJ did not provide any finding indicating that there were supervening circumstances that had made it no longer conducive to a fair trial, thereby justifying the petitioner's retention of freedom through the granted bail concession during the trial.

The bench opined that based on the presented facts, there were no compelling circumstances justifying the cancellation of bail. The contemporary trend was leaning towards granting bail, as established by numerous decisions of the Supreme Court. It was emphasized that the power to grant bail should not be wielded as if imposing a pre-trial punishment. In such cases, the primary considerations should revolve around whether the accused will be available for trial and whether there is a likelihood of abusing the discretion granted by tampering with evidence.

Observing that the impugned order did not contain any indication that the petitioner posed a flight risk, might tamper with evidence if released on bail, or that his liberty would hinder a fair trial, the bench allowed the present petition. Consequently, the order dated 26.09.2023 was set aside, and the order dated 27.04.2023, wherein bail was granted to the petitioner by the ASJ, was restored.