The Delhi High Court has ruled that the subsequent denial of bail to co-accused persons does not, by itself, justify the cancellation of bail already granted to an accused.
The Court clarified that it can cancel bail only when material shows misuse of liberty or violation of bail conditions.
Court Dismisses Plea in ₹6.05 Crore EOW Case
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail in a ₹6.05-crore cheating and forgery case under investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police.
The complainant company had challenged the anticipatory bail granted to the accused by the Sessions Court.
High Court’s Observations
The Court observed:
“The mere fact that co-accused persons have been granted or denied bail subsequently cannot, by itself, constitute a supervening circumstance justifying cancellation of bail already granted to the respondent, in the absence of misuse of liberty.”
Justice Krishna emphasised that later developments in the bail status of co-accused do not automatically affect an earlier bail order.
Arguments Raised by the Complainant
The complainant argued that the accused continued to enjoy the alleged proceeds of crime despite serious incriminating material on record.
It was also contended that the Sessions Court had granted anticipatory bail on the principle of parity. According to the complainant, this parity ceased to exist after bail was denied to other co-accused persons at a later stage.
Cancellation of Bail Requires Post-Bail Misconduct
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court reiterated the settled distinction between recall of bail and cancellation of bail.
The Court held that it can cancel bail only when post-bail conduct shows misuse of liberty. Such conduct includes violation of bail conditions, non-cooperation with the investigation, attempts to influence witnesses, tampering with evidence, or acts that obstruct the administration of justice.
No Breach of Bail Conditions Found
In the present case, the Court noted that the complainant did not allege any violation of bail conditions by the respondent-accused.
The complainant also did not claim that the accused failed to join the investigation. The Court recorded that the Sessions Court had granted anticipatory bail after a detailed assessment of the accused’s role.
Re-Appreciation of Bail Order Impermissible
The High Court held that the cancellation plea effectively sought a re-appreciation of the merits of the bail order.
The Court clarified that such an exercise is impermissible in proceedings seeking cancellation of bail. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Aviation Services LLC v. State
Appearances: Mr. B.K. Singh, Mr. Narendra Kumar and Ms. Shattika Haldar, Advocates for the Petitioner; Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Sanjeet Singh for the Respondents
