Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisses plea for cancellation of anticipatory bail, citing lack of evidence for misuse and violation of bail conditions.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Anil Kumar Kaushik, accused of impersonating Enforcement Directorate officials and extorting money. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel, emphasized the absence of cogent evidence to demonstrate misuse of bail or violation of imposed conditions, despite allegations from the complainant, Vijay Kumar.
The case, stemming from FIR No. 88 dated May 16, 2023, involved charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including impersonation, extortion, and forgery. Vijay Kumar alleged that Kaushik and his associates, posing as ED officials, demanded Rs. 5,00,000 from him, resulting in a payment of Rs. 2,50,000. Subsequent investigations revealed the impersonation, leading to the arrest of co-accused and recoveries.
On July 20, 2023, Kaushik was granted interim anticipatory bail, which was confirmed on September 20, 2023. Kumar's petition for its cancellation was based on claims that Kaushik pressured him to withdraw the FIR and made threats, allegedly violating bail conditions. The High Court, however, found these allegations unsubstantiated, as no material evidence was presented to show influence on witnesses or obstruction of justice.
Justice Goel reiterated the principles governing the cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that mere seriousness of the offense or re-appreciation of facts is insufficient grounds for cancellation. The court noted that the extraordinary power of cancellation requires clear, cogent, and convincing material showing abuse of liberty or obstruction in the course of justice.
During the proceedings, the State counsel confirmed Kaushik's compliance with bail conditions, including joining the investigation and cooperating with the police. The court found no indication of misuse of bail or interference with ongoing investigations.
In light of the presented facts and circumstances, the court concluded that the petition lacked merit, affirming the initial bail order as well-reasoned and unaffected by judicial oversight. The judgment serves as a reminder of the distinct legal standards for granting and cancelling bail, underscoring the need for substantial evidence in cases seeking revocation of bail privileges.
Bottom Line:
Cancellation of anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely based on seriousness of the offence or re-appreciation of facts considered earlier unless there is cogent material showing misuse of liberty or violation of bail conditions.
Statutory provision(s): Section 439(2), Section 438, Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Section 483(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2851162
