Mere Registration Of Subsequent Case Against Accused By Itself Cannot Result In Automatic Cancellation Of Bail In…
Mere Registration of Subsequent Case Against Accused by Itself Cannot Result in Automatic Cancellation of Bail
Context:
When an accused is released on bail in one case, sometimes a subsequent FIR or case is registered against the same accused. The prosecution or police may seek cancellation of bail granted in the earlier case on the ground of the new FIR.
However, mere registration of a fresh case alone cannot be the basis for automatic cancellation of bail granted earlier. The courts have consistently held that the interference with bail orders requires careful consideration of facts and merits, and cannot be triggered mechanically.
Legal Principles:
No Automatic Cancellation
Bail once granted cannot be cancelled merely because a subsequent FIR is registered.
There must be prima facie material to show that the accused has misused liberty or committed fresh offence.
Independent Investigation Required
Courts must independently examine facts of new FIR and assess whether it is frivolous or mala fide.
Cancellation is an exceptional measure, not automatic.
Presumption of Innocence
Accused is presumed innocent in all cases unless proven guilty.
Subsequent case registration does not imply guilt or bail violation.
Consideration of Nature of Subsequent Case
If the new FIR is unrelated or appears to be an afterthought or motivated, courts hesitate to cancel bail.
Bail cancellation may be ordered only if new FIR is genuine, serious, and connected to bail violation.
Relevant Case Laws:
1. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40
Supreme Court held that mere pendency of another case against the accused is not sufficient ground for cancellation of bail.
Each case must be considered on its own merits.
2. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 1 SCC 92
SC clarified that registration of fresh FIR against the accused cannot be a ground for automatic cancellation of bail.
Courts must examine if there is any material to show abuse of bail privilege.
3. Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 594
It was held that bail cancellation is not to be granted lightly; mere registration of subsequent case is not enough.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1962 SC 179
The Supreme Court ruled that bail is a rule, jail an exception; cancellation should be sparingly exercised.
5. Krishna Ramachandra Gokhale v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 13 SCC 601
The Court reiterated that fresh FIR must be scrutinized and cancellation of bail requires sufficient ground.
Practical Application:
| Situation | Court’s Approach Regarding Bail Cancellation |
|---|---|
| Mere registration of subsequent FIR | Bail cannot be cancelled automatically |
| Material evidence of bail violation | Bail cancellation may be considered |
| Subsequent FIR frivolous or mala fide | Bail likely to be retained |
| New case related to original offence | Closer scrutiny; bail cancellation possible if warranted |
Conclusion:
The mere registration of a subsequent FIR or case against an accused who is out on bail does not automatically result in cancellation of bail.
Courts require prima facie material, serious consideration, and fair hearing before cancelling bail.
This principle ensures protection of accused’s rights and prevents misuse of the criminal justice system to harass bail granted persons.
Bail remains a rule rather than an exception, and cancellation is an exceptional remedy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments