New Delhi: In a landmark ruling that reaffirms long-standing principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that bail once granted cannot be cancelled mechanically unless there are supervening circumstancesthat justify such an action. The decision came in the case of Sanjay Kumar Jangid & Anr vs Mukesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr [Criminal Appeal No. 2381 of 2025], pronounced on 2 May 2025 by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Background of the case

The case arose from an FIR registered in Jaipur in November 2021 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including cheating, criminal conspiracy, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. The allegations pertained to fraudulent transfer and registration of a plot under the Padam Vihar housing scheme. The appellants were accused of being witnesses to a forged General Power of Attorney and were alleged to be related to the other co-accused.

The appellants were arrested in February 2022 and later granted regular bail by the Rajasthan High Court on 22 March 2022, primarily on the ground of trial delay. However, the complainant later sought cancellation of this bail.

Proceedings before the High Court and Supreme Court

The Rajasthan High Court initially dismissed the bail cancellation application in March 2023. However, the Supreme Court found the order cryptic and lacking reasoning and remanded the case for fresh consideration. Upon re-hearing, the High Court on 3 December 2024 cancelled the bail, citing abuse of liberty, difficulties in securing the accused’s presence, and alleged post-release misconduct, including one instance of assault on a police party.

Aggrieved by this cancellation, the appellants approached the Supreme Court once again.

Supreme Court’s observations and ruling

The Apex Court made it clear that cancellation of bail is a serious interference with personal liberty and should only be exercised in rare and justifiable circumstances. It referred to established precedents, including Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) and Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992), laying down grounds for bail cancellation such as:

  • Misuse of liberty through similar criminal acts,

  • Tampering with evidence,

  • Threatening witnesses,

  • Attempting to evade trial, among others.

    • The Court noted that although multiple FIRs were lodged against other co-accused, the appellants were not charge-sheeted in any post-bail cases. Their involvement in a 2023 FIR was ruled out after investigation. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no valid reason to cancel their bail.

    Final order

    Setting aside the High Court’s cancellation order, the Supreme Court reinstated the appellants’ bail and directed the expeditious disposal of the pending trial within eight months. The Court emphasised that unless fresh circumstances arise that directly impact a fair trial, liberty once granted must not be withdrawn arbitrarily.