In a significant reaffirmation of legal principles governing bail cancellation, the Supreme Court of India on 2 May 2025 set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court that had cancelled the bail of two accused in a forgery and cheating case. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that once bail is granted, it cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless supervening circumstances justify such action.
Background
The case arises from FIR No. 854/2021 dated 15 November 2021, registered at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur City, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 447, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by respondent Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, who alleged that his allotted plot in a housing scheme named Padam Vihar was fraudulently transferred to another person using forged documents. The accused included Raj Rani Mittal, Deepak Jangid, Rahul Jangid, and Dontesh Jangid (appellant no. 2), among others.
According to the FIR, the accused in collusion with a JDA official prepared fake ownership documents to register Plot No. A-56 in the name of Deepak Jangid. The appellants were said to be present during the notarization and registration of a forged General Power of Attorney (GPA) and were thus alleged to be part of the criminal conspiracy.
The appellants were arrested on 3 February 2022 and subsequently released on regular bail by the High Court on 22 March 2022, primarily on the ground that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.
High Court Proceedings
Following the grant of bail, the complainant filed a Bail Cancellation Application (No. 73/2022) under Section 439(2) CrPC. While the application was initially dismissed on 29 March 2023, the Supreme Court later set aside that dismissal due to lack of reasoning and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Upon reconsideration, the Rajasthan High Court on 3 December 2024 cancelled the bail, citing abuse of liberty and the appellants’ alleged post-bail misconduct, including difficulty in securing their presence, and involvement in new FIRs—one of which involved an alleged assault on a police party.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized the settled jurisprudence that bail once granted should not be cancelled without substantial reasons. The Court referred to precedents including Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC 481], Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra [(1992) 4 SCC 272], and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349], outlining that bail can be cancelled only upon:
- Misuse of liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity,
- Interference with the investigation,
- Tampering with evidence or witnesses,
- Threatening witnesses,
- Attempting to evade legal process or flee the jurisdiction.
“These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive,” the bench noted, adding that “rejection of bail stands on a different platform compared to cancellation of bail which is considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with the liberty of an individual.”
The Court also highlighted that though FIRs were filed post-bail, the appellants were not named in most of them, and in the one FIR (No. 11/2023) in which they were named, they were not charge-sheeted after investigation. “Therefore, merely because subsequent FIRs have been registered against the other co-accused persons, it does not become a valid or fair ground to seize the liberty of bail that has been extended to the appellants herein,” the Court held.
Final Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order dated 3 December 2024, the Supreme Court reinstated the appellants’ bail. It further directed that the trial arising from FIR No. 854/2021 be concluded expeditiously, within eight months from the receipt of the judgment.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Jangid & Anr. vs Mukesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No.: 2381 of 2025 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 1632 of 2025)
Impugned Order: Rajasthan High Court’s order dated 03.12.2024 in Bail Cancellation Application No. 73/2022
