Bail cancellation a serious matter; not to be dealt with in mechanical manner: HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court observed while rejecting a plea from a Haryana woman, who had sought bail cancellation of three accused in a criminal case registered on her complaint
: The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that matters of personal liberty ought not to be taken so lightly and the courts have to be circumspect in accepting requests for cancellation of bail in a “mechanical manner”.
“..I may hasten to add that cancellation of bail is a serious matter and can have significant impact on the life of a person,” the bench of justice Arun Monga observed while rejecting a plea from a Haryana woman, who had sought bail cancellation of three accused in a criminal case registered on her complaint.
The woman in her plea had alleged that they have misused the concession of bail and that they are pressurising her for compromise by giving threats of elimination to her and her family members. Besides this, she had also brought before court an FIR, registered against the trio, when they were on bail.
The case involving her was of criminal intimidation, causing hurt and house trespass, among other sections in Nuh registered on May 16, 2022. The accused had secured bail three days after the FIR. But in June 2022, another FIR was registered against the trio on somewhat allegations, but on a complaint from a different person.
She had argued that while allowing bail in the FIR involving her, the court had said that she could seek cancellation of bail if they again commit any such offence. Also, she had stated that she was being threatened by them.
The court observed that no doubt, if new criminal offences are committed by the accused while on bail, it may be a ground to cancel the bail already granted. However, in the case in hand, the accused have got bail in the second case as well. Also, the second FIR is not pertaining to the complainant woman. Given that there is a stretched history of hostilities between the parties, the “bald assertion” of the woman that they extended threats without any corroborating material, cannot be made a ground to reconsider the original bail decision, the bench said, adding that it would be rather harsh, at this stage, once again to incarcerate the accused.
“Needless to say that parameters governing the cancellation of bail are in very narrow compass. It is only in those cases where there is likelihood of the accused fleeing the court proceedings and/or otherwise being a social threat to the society that this court would interfere in cancelling bail already granted. Matters of liberty are not to be taken as lightly, as has been canvassed by the complainant,” the bench recorded rejecting her plea.
