Judgment · High Court · 2026

This is an application for cancellation of bail preferred by the present applicant – original complainant under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (‘the BNSS’ for short), seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2026, passed by the learned trial Court i.e. City Civil & Session Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.3722 of 2026, whereby the learned trial Court has granted regular bail to the respondent–original accused in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191023260103 of 2026 registered with Vadaj Police Station, District Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(3), 61(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 344 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.

Rule. Learned APP waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State. R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026

3.1 Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged against the respondent–accused and has mechanically granted bail. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the material available on record, which has adversely affected the ongoing investigation. It is further contended that the possibility of the respondent–accused tampering with the prosecution evidence and influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out.

3.2. It is further submitted that while considering the bail application preferred by the respondent–accused, the learned trial Court did not adequately examine the evidence collected during the course of investigation and therefore, committed a grave error in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused. The learned advocate has drawn attention to the serious allegations levelled

against the respondent–accused in the FIR and submitted that the nature and gravity of such accusations were not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court while granting bail.

3.3 Referring to the documents and material collected by the Investigating Officer, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that ample evidence has been gathered during the investigation, which, prima facie, establishes the direct involvement of the respondent–accused in the commission of the alleged offence. Despite the availability of such incriminating material, the learned R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 trial Court failed to assign proper weight to the same and erroneously granted bail to the respondent–accused.

3.4 It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order granting bail suffers from non-application of mind and improper appreciation of the material on record. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the evidence collected during investigation and the likelihood of prejudice to a fair investigation, it is submitted that the present application may be allowed by cancelling the bail granted to the respondent–accused in the interest of justice. 4 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant and has further submitted that the impugned order granting bail to the respondent–accused is contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has granted bail without properly appreciating the evidence collected during the course of investigation and without taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged against the respondent–accused.

4.1 It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, wherein specific grounds were raised opposing the grant of bail. The contents of the said affidavit, which were material and relevant for deciding the bail application, have not been duly R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 considered by the learned Trial Court while exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent–accused.

4.2 It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion in an erroneous manner and that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application, cancel the bail granted to the respondent–accused.

5.1 Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the present application has been filed merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, without placing on record any cogent material or demonstrating the existence of any supervening or prevailing circumstances warranting interference with the order granting bail. In the absence of any substantive material to justify the relief sought, the application does not merit consideration.

5.2. Considering the role attributed to the present applicant is that there are allegations that the accused nos.1 and 2 in connivance with each other had prepared false bills towards the rent expenses of hotel Asha situated at Jamnagar and the same were prepared during their employment and the same was passed after verification which was found that all the accused had in connivance with each other misappropriated the funds of the R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 complainant. The fact remains that respondent no.2 was not working with the company and the role attributed to the respondent no.2 is receiving the said amount from the complainant who happens to be the uncle and thereafter the said amount was transferred in the account of other persons whom respondent no.2 knew.

5.3 The prosecution case, in brief, is that Accused Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with each other, prepared false bills showing rent expenses for Hotel Asha situated at Jamnagar. These bills were processed and cleared during their employment. On verification, it was found that the bank account mentioned in the documents did not belong to the person or entity in whose name the expenses were shown. It is the case of the prosecution that due to this, funds were wrongly diverted and the complainant company suffered loss.

5.4 It is further alleged that by following this method, the accused persons, acting with common intention, misappropriated and diverted company funds. The total loss is stated to be around Rs.3,60,08,222/-. The chargesheet refers to the preparation of bills, their approval, movement of money through different accounts, and the role of each accused in the said process. As far as Respondent No.2 is concerned, the material collected during investigation has to be seen in light of his specific role. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.2 was not an employee of the complainant R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 company. There is no allegation that he was involved in preparing, checking, or approving the bills related to Hotel Asha. There is also nothing on record to show that he had any control or responsibility over the accounts or financial affairs of the complainant company.

5.5. The main allegation against Respondent No.2 is that his bank account was used for receiving part of the alleged diverted amount. The investigation further shows that the amount received in his account was later transferred to another person known to him. It is also stated that the amount came to him from Accused No.1, who is said to be his uncle. Thus, the allegation against Respondent No.2 is mainly based on the flow of money through his account and its further transfer.

5.6. It is important to note that the investigation is already complete and the chargesheet was filed on 17.04.2026. The case of the prosecution rests on documents such as bank records, bills and other material collected during investigation. There is no allegation that after release on bail, Respondent No.2 has tried to interfere with the investigation, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or misuse the liberty granted to him.

5.7. The fact that Respondent No.2’s bank account was used for receiving and transferring money is certainly a circumstance that will be examined during trial. However, by itself, it cannot be treated as final proof of his involvement in the entire alleged R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 offence. Whether he had knowledge of the transaction, whether he was part of any conspiracy, and whether the movement of money was part of a planned act are all issues that will have to be proved during trial on the basis of evidence.

5.8. It is also relevant that the main allegations of preparing and processing false bills relate to Accused Nos.1 and 2, who were employees of the complainant company. Respondent No.2 was not employed with the company. Therefore, his alleged role is different in nature and has to be examined only on the basis of material specifically linking him to the offence.

5.9. The order granting regular bail was passed after the chargesheet had already been filed on 17.04.2026. This shows that the Court was aware that investigation was complete and the prosecution material was already on record. No fresh circumstance has been shown to indicate that Respondent No.2 has misused the liberty granted to him after being released on bail.

5.10. It is a settled position of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled lightly. Cancellation is justified only when there are strong reasons such as misuse of liberty, attempt to influence witnesses, tampering with evidence, likelihood of absconding, or similar conduct. At the same time, the Court can interfere if the order granting bail suffers from serious legal or factual error.

5.11. In the present case, considering the role attributed to R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 Respondent No.2, the fact that he is not an employee of the complainant company, the absence of any allegation of involvement in preparation or approval of bills, the nature of allegation limited to use of his bank account, the completion of investigation, and filing of chargesheet, this Court does not find any new or strong ground to cancel the bail already granted.

5.12. The allegations are no doubt serious and involve a large amount of money. However, seriousness alone is not enough to cancel bail, especially when investigation is complete and there is no material showing misuse of liberty. The questions regarding his knowledge, intention, and connection with other accused will be decided during trial.

5.14 It is further pertinent to note that it was never the case of the prosecution that the presence of the respondent– accused was required for any further investigation.

5.15 The learned trial Court, while granting bail, imposed stringent conditions to secure his presence and ensure that the investigation and trial were not prejudiced. Significantly, since the date of grant of bail, no untoward incident has been reported.

5.15 Moreover, it is not the case of the present applicant– original complainant that the respondent–accused has, at any point of time, tampered with the evidence, attempted to influence or intimidate witnesses, obstructed the course of justice, or committed R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 breach of any of the conditions imposed while granting bail. In the absence of any such supervening circumstance or material demonstrating misuse of liberty by the respondent–accused, the present application seeking cancellation of bail appears to have been filed merely on the basis of conjectures and apprehensions, which cannot constitute a valid ground for cancellation of bail in law.

5.16 Upon a careful examination of the findings recorded and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge, this Court finds that all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case have been duly considered. The impugned order reflects proper application of mind to the material available on record, and detailed as well as cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Judge while passing the said order. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court warranting interference.

5.17 It is well settled that the parameters governing rejection of a bail application at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted by a competent Court are distinct and operate in different spheres. Once bail has been granted, its cancellation can be justified only upon the existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as misuse of liberty by the accused or the emergence of supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation. R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026

5.18 In the present case, the learned advocate for the applicant has failed to point out any supervening circumstance that has arisen subsequent to the grant of bail. Furthermore, it is not even the case of the applicant and the State that the respondent–accused has misused the liberty granted by the Court, breached any of the conditions imposed, tampered with evidence, influenced witnesses, or otherwise acted in a manner prejudicial to the fair conduct of the proceedings. In the absence of any such material, no case is made out for cancellation of the bail granted by the competent Court.

5.19 In the case of P. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 552, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enumerated the circumstances, when bail could be canceled and one of the conditions stated therein is the misuse of the liberty granted to the accused concerned by the Court by involving himself in a subsequent crime.

5.20 Further, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajwar Vs. Waseem reported in 2024 INSC 438, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the same Court which granted bail to an accused can cancel the bail if there are serious allegations against him, even if the accused has not misused the bail. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be canceled. However, once bail is granted, it ought not to be canceled in a mechanical manner. An R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 unreasonable or perverse order of bail may invite interference by the Apex Court. Personal liberty is one of the cherished Constitutional freedoms, and once bail is granted during the pendency of the trial, it must only be retracted in the face of grave circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, in paragraphs 27 and 28, has observed as under : “27. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused.

In Jagjeet Singh (supra), a three- Judges bench of this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an [2024] 5 S.C.R. 593 Ajwar v. Waseem and Another application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail.” R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026

5.21 In the case of Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to observe that the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of canceling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts are requiring such cancellation. In Paragraph No.16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court has observed as under : "16. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under Section 498 CrPC of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate refuses to grant bail to an accused person, the High Court or the Court of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly under Section 439(2) of the new Code, the High Court or the Court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody.

In the old Code, Section 498(2) was worded in somewhat different language when it said that a High Court or Court of Session may cause any person who has been admitted to bail under sub-section (1) to be arrested and R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 may commit him to custody. In other words, under Section 498(2) of the old Code, a person who had been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him to custody. This restriction upon the power of entertainment of an application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code under Section 439(2). Under Section 439(2) of the new Code a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXIII by any Court including the Court of Session to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so.

It must, however, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court. If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court. "

5.22 The aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Puran Vs. Rambilas & Anr., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 as well as in case of Abdul Basit alias Raju & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Cahudhary & Anr., reported in (2014) 10 SCC

5.23 In the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2013) 16 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 under in Para-19 : "19. It needs no special emphasis to state that there is distinction between the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail. There is also a distinction between the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances warrant such cancellation. If the order granting bail is a perverse one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by the superior court. We have already referred to various paragraphs of the order passed by the High Court. We have already held that the learned trial Judge has undefined misconstrued the order passed by the High Court. However, we may hasten to add that the learned Single Judge has taken note of certain supervening circumstances to cancel the bail, but we are of the opinion that in the obtaining factual matrix the said exercise was not necessary as the grant of bail was absolutely illegal and unjustified as the R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 court below had enlarged the accused on bail on the strength of the order passed in Ranjeet Singh v. State of M.P. [Ranjeet Singh v. State of M.P., MCRC No. 701 of 2013, order dated 1- 2-2013 (MP)] remaining oblivious of the parameters for grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC. It is well settled in law that grant of bail though involves exercise of discretionary power of the court, yet the said exercise has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. "

5.24 At this juncture, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dolat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1995(1) SCC 349, is required to be recollected. It was observed therein that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. The grounds for cancellation of bail though are broad, but illustrative and not exhaustive; are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The Court should satisfy for availability of the grounds for satisfying of the bail or cancellation of the bail and one of the possibility is accused being absconded. The bail once granted, should not in a mechanical manner, without any R/CR.MA/18928/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 grounds, or supervening circumstance, which affects the very principle of fair trial be cancelled.

5.25 In the present case, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is founded upon sound legal principles and is supported by cogent and well-reasoned findings. This Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the said order so as to warrant interference in exercise of its jurisdiction.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any case warranting interference with the impugned order granting bail in favour of the respondent–accused. No sufficient grounds, reasons, or supervening circumstances have been brought on record so as to justify cancellation of bail or to persuade this Court to take a different view than that taken by the learned Trial Court.

Accordingly, the present application is rejected. Rule is discharged. URIL RANA (SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.