Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand Says Accused Cannot Continue to Enjoy Bail After Addition of Serious Non-Bailable Offences
The cancellation bail after non-bailable offence Rajasthan High Court ruling clarifies that bail granted for bailable offences cannot continue once investigators add graver non-bailable charges during the investigation. Dismissing a challenge to the cancellation of bail, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the accused loses the benefit of bail granted for minor offences when the nature of the offence changes.
Background of the Case
Petitioners Arun Singh and Digambar challenged the January 4, 2023 order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Bharatpur. The trial court had allowed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cancelled the bail earlier granted to them.
The case arose from FIR No. 217/2020 registered at Police Station Nadbai, Bharatpur. Initially, the FIR included offences under Sections 143, 452, 323, 341, 354, 336, and 427 of the IPC.
After the initial investigation, the police found only bailable offences under Sections 323, 336, 341, 427, and 34 IPC. Based on those findings, the Investigating Agency granted bail to the petitioners under Section 436 CrPC.
During further investigation, the police added Section 452 IPC, which is a non-bailable offence. The State then sought cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC, and the trial court allowed the application.
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioners argued that they should continue to enjoy bail despite the later addition of a non-bailable offence. They contended that the trial court wrongly cancelled their bail solely because Section 452 IPC was added.
The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed the plea. They argued that once investigators add a graver non-bailable offence, the accused cannot retain bail granted for bailable offences. They relied on the Rajasthan High Court’s earlier decision in Sharwan Lal Jat v. State of Rajasthan.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Dhand relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280.
The Supreme Court had held that bail granted for lesser offences does not automatically continue if the investigation later reveals involvement in a more serious offence.
The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation:
“With the change of the nature of the offence, the accused becomes disentitled to the liberty granted to him in relation to a minor offence, if the offence is altered for an aggravated crime.”
The High Court also relied on its earlier decision in Abdul Gafoor v. State of Rajasthan, which upheld the cancellation of bail granted under Section 436 CrPC after investigators added graver non-bailable offences.
Reliance on Pradeep Ram Judgment
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 17 SCC 326.
The Supreme Court clarified that when investigators add non-bailable offences after granting bail, the investigating agency must approach the competent court under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC before taking the accused into custody.
The cancellation bail after non-bailable offence Rajasthan High Court judgment follows the same legal principle and reinforces the established procedure.
Court’s Findings
Justice Dhand summarised the legal position as follows:
“The settled position of law which emerges is that the benefit of bail granted to an accused under bailable offences cannot continue and shall stand cancelled on addition of graver and non-bailable offence.”
The Court found no error in the Special Judge’s order cancelling the petitioners’ bail. It held that the trial court acted in accordance with settled legal principles and that no interference was necessary.
Final Order
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition and upheld the cancellation of the petitioners’ bail.
The Court also disposed of all pending applications, including the stay application.
