Overview
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that bail once granted cannot be cancelled mechanically. The decision came in the case of Sanjay Kumar Jangid & Anr v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 2381 of 2025, wherein the Apex Court restored the bail of the accused after finding no supervening circumstances to justify its cancellation.
Case Background
The case stemmed from FIR No. 854/2021 registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 447, and 120B of the IPC. The complainant alleged fraudulent transfer of a plot under a housing scheme in Jaipur. The accused were initially granted bail in March 2022 by the Rajasthan High Court, which was later revoked in December 2024 based on allegations of misuse of bail.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed that:
- Bail cancellation cannot be done in a routine or mechanical manner.
- Only supervening circumstances such as new offenses or threats to the trial process can justify such cancellation.
- The accused were not charge-sheeted in subsequent FIRs and therefore did not meet the criteria for bail cancellation.
Key Legal Principles
The Court relied on established precedents including:
- Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995)
- Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986)
- Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992)
These cases emphasize that liberty granted through bail should not be withdrawn unless it endangers justice or public order.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order dated December 3, 2024. It also directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months. This decision reinforces the principle that bail should not be cancelled arbitrarily, and that personal liberty is paramount in the absence of strong and justifiable reasons.
