Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Whether the legal standards and considerations applicable for initial grant of bail are identical to those for cancellation of bail -- Held, considerations for grant of bail and for its cancellation are not identical -- While the grant of bail involves a preventive evaluation of the likelihood of misuse of liberty, the cancellation of bail entails a review of the prior decision, either on account of supervening circumstances or because the original order was legally flawed
Per R. Mahadevan, J.
It is equally well established that the considerations for grant of bail and for its cancellation are not identical. While the grant of bail involves a preventive evaluation of the likelihood of misuse of liberty, the cancellation of bail entails a review of the prior decision - either on account of supervening circumstances or because the original order was legally flawed. As laid down in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi, “Rejection of bail when bail is applied for, is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another”. This principle reflects a recognition of the sanctity of liberty once granted, and the requirement of compelling justification for its withdrawal.
As per Halsbury's Laws of England, the grant of bail does not set the accused at liberty in the absolute sense but merely shifts custody from the State to the sureties. Consequently, cancellation of bail entails an assessment of whether the accused has abused the liberty so conferred. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, this Court delineated broad, though not exhaustive, grounds justifying cancellation of bail, including:
* Interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice;
* Evasion of justice;
* Abuse of the concession of bail;
* Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.
In Abdul Basit v. Abdul Kadir Choudhary, this Court elaborated the circumstances in which bail granted under S.439(2) CrPC may be cancelled, including where the accused:
* engages in similar criminal activity post-bail;
* interferes with or obstructs the investigation;
* tampers with evidence or influences witnesses;
* intimidates or threatens witnesses;
* attempts to abscond or evade judicial process;
* becomes unavailable or goes underground;
* violates the conditions imposed or evades the control of sureties.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025
Decided On: 14.08.2025
State of Karnataka Vs. Darshan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Author: R. Mahadevan, J.
Citation: 2025 KHC 6693: 2025 INSC 979, MANU/SC/1098/2025.
