Can Sessions Court cancel bail granted by High Court? Punjab and Haryana High Court answers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently said that a Sessions Court can also cancel the bail granted to an accused by the High Court on account of supervening circumstances like violation of the release conditions..“A Sessions Court has a power to cancel regular bail granted by High Court or by itself or by a Magistrate’s Court. However, the Sessions Court can cancel regular bail granted by High Court only where the accused has violated any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting bail) or on account of such accused having misused liberty granted to him by trying to influence witness(s) or having tried to delay trial by absenting himself or having committed another offence(s) while on bail and other factors of akin nature,” the High Court said.However, a Magistrate can cancel only the bail granted by him but he cannot cancel a bail granted by High Court or Sessions Court except when such accused has violated/contravened any condition imposed by such High Court or Sessions Court while granting bail to such accused..Justice Sumeet Goel made the observations while dealing with petitions challenging Sessions Court’s order granting anticipatory bail in a case under provisions of Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. The matter related to a matrimonial dispute.In the judgement, the single-judge analysed the law regarding cancellation of bail and setting aside of a bail order.“There is a conceptual distinction between “cancellation of bail” & “setting-aside of a bail order”. In a plea seeking “cancellation of bail”; the factors required to be considered are akin to supervening circumstances/events or mis-conduct of accused whereas in a plea seeking “setting-aside of a bail order”; the factors required to be considered are akin to the order in question being unjustified or illegal or not based on relevant consideration(s). In other words, a plea seeking “setting aside of a bail order” is more in the nature of laying challenge to an order granting bail before a superior Court upon merits," the High Court said. .While the High Court can cancel the bail granted by itself or the Sessions Court, such cancellation of Sessions Court order should ordinarily be filed before the same court.However, since there is concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court as per Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filing of such plea before High Court is not barred, the Court clarified.“However, since there is concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court as also Sessions Court in terms of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973, the filing of such a plea straight away before the High Court is not ipso facto barred. At the same time, it would be expedient that such a plea (filed straight away before the High Court) must show cogent reason(s) for not approaching the Sessions Court in the first instance,” the Court said.Permanently, the Court made similar observations regarding cancellation of anticipatory bail. .The Court also said that a plea seeking setting aside of the bail order, whether anticipatory or regular, must be filed before a Court which is superior to the one which has granted the bail. In the present case, the Court found no allegation of misuse of concession of anticipatory bail and thus dismissed the petitions seeking setting aside of anticipatory bail orders passed by Sessions Court in Faridabad.“The sole plank of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the complete recovery of dowry articles/Istridhan has not been made and hence the Sessions Court ought not to have granted the anticipatory bail to the private respondent(s). It is trite law that non-recovery of dowry articles/stridhan cannot, by itself, be a ground for declining a plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the husband or his relatives,” it said..Advocate Sitanshu Sharma represented the petitioner.Additional Advocate General Priyanka Sadar represented the State of Haryana.Advocate RS Athwal represented the accused.[Read Order]