A Review of the Legal Principles and Judicial Decisions on the Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail in India
Introduction
Anticipatory bail is a legal remedy that allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. The purpose of anticipatory bail is to protect the person from the possible misuse of the power of arrest by the police or the complainant, and to safeguard the person’s liberty, reputation, and dignity. Anticipatory bail is granted by the High Court or the Court of Session under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which empowers these courts to grant bail to a person even before he or she is arrested, subject to such conditions as they deem fit.
However, anticipatory bail is not an absolute right, and it can be cancelled by the same court that granted it, or by a superior court, in exceptional circumstances. The cancellation of anticipatory bail is a serious matter that affects the liberty of the person and the administration of justice. Therefore, it should be done only on very cogent and overwhelming grounds, and not lightly or arbitrarily. The criteria for cancellation of anticipatory bail are not explicitly laid down in the CrPC, but they have been evolved by various judicial decisions over time.
In this essay, we will discuss the various grounds and circumstances that can warrant the cancellation of anticipatory bail, such as interference with the investigation, tampering with the evidence, threatening or influencing the witnesses, abusing the liberty granted by bail, fleeing from justice, or repeating similar offences. We will also cite some relevant judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts that have laid down the principles and guidelines for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Criteria for Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail
The criteria for cancellation of anticipatory bail are based on two main considerations: (a) whether there is any material change in the circumstances or facts that led to the grant of anticipatory bail; and (b) whether there is any misuse or abuse of the concession of anticipatory bail by the person who obtained it. These considerations are not exhaustive or rigid, but they provide a broad framework for assessing each case on its own merits.
Criteria for Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail
The criteria for cancellation of anticipatory bail are based on two main considerations: (a) whether there is any material change in the circumstances or facts that led to the grant of anticipatory bail; and (b) whether there is any misuse or abuse of the concession of anticipatory bail by the person who obtained it. These considerations are not exhaustive or rigid, but they provide a broad framework for assessing each case on its own merits.
Some of the common grounds and circumstances that can justify the cancellation of anticipatory bail are:
- Interference with the investigation: One of the most important grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail is when the person who obtained it interferes with or obstructs the investigation of the case. This may include failing to cooperate with the investigating officer, refusing to appear before him or her as directed by the court, concealing or destroying any material evidence, or creating any false evidence. The court may cancel the anticipatory bail if it is satisfied that such interference has hampered or prejudiced the investigation, and that it is necessary to secure the presence of the person for further investigation. For example, in [State v. Anil Sharma], the Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a corruption case, as he did not join the investigation despite repeated summons and notices from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
- Tampering with the evidence: Another ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail is when the person who obtained it tampers with or manipulates any evidence related to the case. This may include altering or deleting any electronic data, such as phone calls, messages, emails, or videos; removing or hiding any physical evidence, such as documents, weapons, or objects; or influencing or bribing any expert witness, such as a doctor, a forensic analyst, or a handwriting expert. The court may cancel the anticipatory bail if it is satisfied that such tampering has affected or compromised the integrity or reliability of the evidence, and that it is necessary to prevent any further tampering. For example, in [Government of A.P v. P.B Vijayakumar And Another], the High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a dowry death case, as he tampered with his mobile phone by removing his SIM card and deleting some messages and calls.
- Threatening or influencing the witnesses: Another ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail is when the person who obtained it threatens or influences any witness in the case. This may include intimidating or harassing any eyewitness, informant, complainant, co-accused, or family member; offering or promising any inducement or benefit to any witness; dissuading or preventing any witness from giving evidence; or making any false or misleading statement to any witness. The court may cancel the anticipatory bail if it is satisfied that such threatening or influencing has impaired or jeopardized the testimony of any witness, and that it is necessary to protect them from any further harm. For example, in [Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)], the Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a dowry harassment case, as he threatened and influenced his own brother, who was a material witness against him.
- Abusing the liberty granted by bail: Another ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail is when the person who obtained it abuses the liberty or privilege granted by bail. This may include violating any condition imposed by the court while granting bail, such as reporting to the police station, surrendering the passport, furnishing a bond, or not leaving the jurisdiction; committing any offence or act of violence while on bail; or indulging in any activity or conduct that is prejudicial to the public order, morality, or security. The court may cancel the anticipatory bail if it is satisfied that such abuse has defeated or frustrated the purpose of bail, and that it is necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice. For example, in [Savita v. State of Rajasthan], the High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a rape case, as he violated the condition of not contacting the victim or her family, and also committed another offence of kidnapping and raping another minor girl while on bail.
- Fleeing from justice: Another ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail is when the person who obtained it flees from justice or absconds from the law. This may include failing to appear before the court or the police as required by law, changing or concealing his or her identity or address, leaving or attempting to leave the country without permission, or taking any steps to evade arrest or detection. The court may cancel the anticipatory bail if it is satisfied that such fleeing has shown a lack of faith or respect for the law, and that it is necessary to secure his or her presence for trial. For example, in [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain], the Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a murder case, as he fled from India to Dubai and did not return despite several notices and warrants issued against him
- Repeating similar offences: Another ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail is when the person who obtained it repeats similar offences or engages in similar criminal activities while on bail. This may include committing any offence that is of the same nature or category as the one for which he or she obtained bail, such as murder, rape, robbery, or theft; involving in any organised crime, gang activity, terrorism, or drug trafficking; or having any previous history or record of similar offences or convictions. The court may cancel the anticipatory bail if it is satisfied that such repeating has shown a habitual or incorrigible tendency to commit crimes, and that it is necessary to prevent any further harm to society. For example, in [State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar], the Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a bomb blast case, as he was involved in several other cases of terrorism and had a long criminal antecedents.
Conclusion
The cancellation of anticipatory bail is a serious and exceptional measure that affects the liberty of the person and the administration of justice. Therefore, it should be done only on very cogent and overwhelming grounds, and not lightly or arbitrarily. The criteria for cancellation of anticipatory bail are not explicitly laid down in the CrPC, but they have been evolved by various judicial decisions over time. The criteria are based on two main considerations: (a) whether there is any material change in the circumstances or facts that led to the grant of anticipatory bail; and (b) whether there is any misuse or abuse of the concession of anticipatory bail by the person who obtained it. Some of the common grounds and circumstances that can justify the cancellation of anticipatory bail are: interference with the investigation, tampering with the evidence, threatening or influencing the witnesses, abusing the liberty granted by bail, fleeing from justice, or repeating similar offences.
The cancellation of anticipatory bail is a matter of judicial discretion and depends on each case on its own merits. The court has to balance between the right to personal liberty and the duty to ensure fair investigation and trial. The court has to consider all relevant factors and circumstances before deciding whether to cancel or not to cancel anticipatory bail. The court has also to give an opportunity to both parties to present their arguments and evidence before passing any order of cancellation. The court has also to record its reasons for cancelling or not cancelling anticipatory bail.
The cancellation of anticipatory bail is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. The end is to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done in every case. The cancellation of anticipatory bail is not a punishment or a penalty for the person who obtained it, but a preventive measure to protect the interests of justice and society. The cancellation of anticipatory bail does not mean that the person is guilty or has no right to defend himself or herself. It only means that the person has to face the legal process and cooperate with the investigation and trial. The person can still apply for regular bail after his or her arrest, and the court will decide on the merits of each case. The cancellation of anticipatory bail is a discretionary power of the court, and it should be exercised with caution and care, keeping in mind the balance between personal liberty and public interest.
