'Rejection Of A Bail In A Non-Bailable Case At The Initial Stage And The Cancellation Of Bail Have To Be Dealt On A Different Basis': Gujarat HC

The Applicant (Original Complainant) indicated that goods worth INR 42,35,000 were stolen from his house and as a result a complaint was registered for offences punishable under Sec 457, 454, 380 and 114 of the IPC. However, it was submitted that Respondent No. 2 (Accused person) committed the crime of a similar nature during the pendency of the instant proceedings and therefore, bail should not be allowed to continue. There were also additional averments that the Accused person was served notice in 2017 for the instant application and yet he chose not to cooperate with it. The APP submitted that the Accused person had committed several offences of similar nature, including during the pendency of the petition. Two more offences were committed in 2021 and therefore, bail ought to be cancelled.

Justice Ashutosh Shastri while noting the material on record noted that the Accused person had committed six offences in toto and had misused his liberty and violated bail conditions during the pendency of the instant application. The Accused person was also served notice long back in the month of 2017 and yet no representation was made on his behalf in the light of the Court's notice. Justice Shastri tersely remarked, "this mindset of the respondent No.2 also cannot be ignored while disposing of this application."

The High Court also relied on the report from the concerned police station about the Accused person's misconduct wherein the Accused had attacked the other accused persons and a police officer. It was stated, "the Court is convinced that the respondent No.2 does not deserve any liberty to be continued."

Reliance was placed on Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors., v. State of Telangana & Anr., to observe:

"In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar this Court held that 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. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive."

Reference was made to X. v State of Telangana & Anr., to note the difference between the cancellation of bail and rejection of bail:

"Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted."

As a result, the High Court held that no further liberty could be granted to the Accused person.

Case Title: AASIFBHAI HAJIABDUL BHAYA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

Case No.: R/CR.MA/14875/2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 225

Click Here To Read/Download Order