It is most significant to note that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most learned, laudable, logical, landmark and latest judgment titled Rajiya Vs State of Haryana in CRM-M-35903-2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:16447 that was pronounced just recently on December 21, 2023 has reiterated clearly that no condition for automatic cancellation of bail can be imposed while granting bail.
It must be mentioned that the Court was deciding a petition under Section 483 of the CrPC seeking to set aside the condition/observation i.e., “in case, the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the bail granted, in the case in hand shall be deemed to be dismissed without further notice” imposed vide an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail. No doubt, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi thus very rightly observed that mere violation of the bail conditions would not be sufficient to cancel the bail and that the court must be satisfied that it is necessary to cancel the same, keeping in view the various factors.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of Punjab and Haryana High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the condition/observation i.e. in case, the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the bail granted, in the case in hand shall deemed to be dismissed without further notice imposed vide order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Addl.
Sessions Judge, Faridabad (Annexure P-3) while granting bail to the petitioner in FIR No.450 dated 08.09.2020 registered under Sections 20-61-85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, Haryana as well as the order dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.450 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, Haryana came to be registered against the petitioner with the allegations that 1 Kg 534 Gms of Ganja had been recovered from her. The copy of the said FIR is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 3 that, “The petitioner sought the concession of bail and was granted the same by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) with the following observations:-
“It is made clear that in case, the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the bail granted, in the case in hand shall deemed to be dismissed without further notice.””
Further, the Bench then lays bare in para 4 stating that, “Thereafter, an FIR No.207 dated 14.04.2022 under Sections 20/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, Haryana came to be registered against one Hamida from whom the recovery of 3 Kgs 770 Gms of Ganja was effected. The copy of the said FIR is annexed as Annexure P-4 to the petition. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of the said Hamida. Hamida was granted bail vide order dated 06.07.2022. The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2023 and was granted bail on 08.05.2023 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, Haryana.”
Furthermore, the Bench then specifies in para 5 observing that, “An FIR No.378 dated 03.07.2022 under Sections 20/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, Haryana came to be registered against one Amar who was found in possession of 610 Gms of Ganja. The copy of the said FIR is annexed as Annexure P-6 to the petition. The petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of Amar. He was granted bail in this FIR vide order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the JMIC, Faridabad, Haryana.”
As we see, the Bench then hastens to add in para 6 specifying that, “Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution for cancellation of bail granted in the instant FIR bearing No.450 on the grounds that the petitioner had subsequently been found to have been involved in other FIRs (Annexures P-4 & P-6). A response to the said application was filed and it was contended that she had been named in the disclosure statements of the arrested accused at the instance of the Investigating Agency. On the basis of the respective pleadings of both the parties, the regular bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) was cancelled on the ground that there was a condition for automatic cancellation of bail in para 7 of the order. The copy of the order cancelling bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.10.2022 is annexed as Annexure P-8 to the petition.”
As it turned out, the Bench then observes in para 7 that, “The condition imposed vide order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby the bail has been cancelled are under challenge in the present petition.”
It certainly merits mentioning that the Bench points out in para 8 that, “The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the condition imposed in the order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) was contrary to the settled proposition of law and in fact, no condition for automatic cancellation of bail could be imposed while granting bail. There must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances to cancel the bail already granted and the same could not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. Even otherwise, mere violation of the bail conditions was not sufficient to cancel the bail but the satisfaction of the Court was necessary that the bail was required to be cancelled after examining various factors.
Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Subhendu Mishra Versus Subrat Kumar Mishra and another, 1999 AIR (Supreme Court) 3026, Godson Versus State of Kerala, 2022(3) Crimes 191, Abdul Lathif @ Shokkari Lathif Versus State of Kerala, CRL. MC No.6677 of 2022, decided on 10.02.2023 and Renjith Versus State of Kerala, 2023(1) ILR (Kerala) 1060.”
As things stand, the Bench notes in para 12 that, “Coming back to the facts of the instant case, when the petitioner was granted the concession of bail, a condition was imposed that his bail would be deemed to be dismissed in case he was found to be involved in cases of a similar nature in future. It was in pursuance to the said order that the impugned order 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) has been passed cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner.”
Most significantly and so also most commendably, the Bench then mandates in para 13 holding succinctly that, “A perusal of the judgments referred to hereinabove would show that no condition for the automatic cancellation of bail can be imposed while granting bail.
The only condition that can be imposed is that the Investigating Agency/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail which would be adjudicated upon in accordance with law. In fact, bail once granted cannot be cancelled automatically and in a mechanical manner. There must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances necessary to cancel the bail once granted. Mere violation of the bail conditions would not be sufficient to cancel the bail. The Court must be satisfied that it is necessary to cancel the same keeping in view various factors. In the instant case, however, the bail has been cancelled automatically without examining any circumstances whatsoever one of which would have been that in the two other cases registered against the petitioner, she had been granted the concession of bail prior to her bail being cancelled in the instant case.”
As a corollary, we thus observe that the Bench then notes in para 14 observing that, “In view of the aforementioned discussion, the observation made in the order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) which reads as “It is made clear that in case, the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the bail granted, in the case in hand shall deemed to be dismissed without further notice.” would be substituted with the following observations as “it is made clear that in case the applicant is involved in any other case of similar nature, the prosecution/Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before the appropriate Court which shall be adjudicated upon in accordance with law.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then directs in para 15 that, “Further, as the bail granted to the petitioner stood cancelled vide order dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) which was based on the observations made in the order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-3), the order dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled stands quashed.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by clarifying in para 16 that, “However, it is made clear that the prosecution/Investigating Agency would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail, if so advised and the same shall be adjudicated upon by the concerned Court in accordance with law in view of the observations made hereinabove.”
In conclusion, it may well be said that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it indubitably clear that no condition for automatic cancellation of bail can be imposed while granting bail. This must be adhered to by all the Judges in India and is definitely worth emulating in similar such cases.
No condition should be imposed by the Judges while granting bail as held so very commendably, cogently and convincingly by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of Punjab and Haryana High Court. There can be just no denying it!