1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANC. APPLICATION NO. 3199/2009 Kanji vs. Ashok & Anr. DATE : 06.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Reportable Mr. Tarun Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, for the complainant. Mr. Amit Poonia, P.P. for the State. This order governs the disposal of an application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Kanji seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent No. 1 who has been granted bail vide order dated 31.03.2009 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant provisions of law as also relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has craved the cancellation of bail merely on this ground that Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, released the respondent No. 1 Ashok S/o. Kanji on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. despite the fact that he was declared a juvenile on 26.03.2009 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City. Thus, powers exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was without jurisdiction and the bail granted to the respondent No. 1 deserves to be cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2 State have opposed the petition and contended that even if it is taken to be true that the bail granted to the respondent No. 1 by the court below was without jurisdiction, then also the bail granted cannot be cancelled unless it is proved that the respondent Ashok abused the concession of bail granted to him. 5. Now, it is very settled that the parameters of accepting the bail are altogether distinct from the parameters of cancelling the bail already granted. The respondent has not abused the liberty of his bail. The petitioner has not quoted any instance to prove that the respondent tampered with or endeavoured to tamper with any witness, posed any threat to the petitioner, tried to hide himself or hampered the investigation or the trial of the case, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 961) has held that: “rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Dolatram and others Vs. State of Haryana (1995) (1) Supreme Court cases 349) that: “rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already 3 granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of Smt. Rajbala vs. State of Rajasthan (2005 (1) R.C.C. 289) as under:- “It is now well settled by a catena of cases of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations for grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is found that respondent Ashok was declared as a juvenile by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City and he dismissed his bail petition by order dated 27.03.2009. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City who observed in his order dated 31.03.2009 that the Board had not exercised powers for not releasing the juvenile on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 aptly, as there was no ground on record to deny the bail to the 4 respondent Ashok and thus, allowed bail to him. It is relevant to note that any order passed by a competent authority under the Juvenile Justice Act is appealable to the Court of Session except an order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence or any order made by a committee in respect of finding that a person is not a neglected juvenile. Thus, it is tangible that the order dated 27.03.2009 rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City vide which the bail petition of the respondent No. 1 stood dismissed was appealable in the court of Session and the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City can be said to be an order having passed in appeal under Section 52 of Juvenile Justice Act. Neither the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act nor the provisions of Cr.P.C. restrain any court of Session from exercising the powers of granting bail. Be that as it may, the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City cannot be said to be an illegal order or an order passed without jurisdiction. Learned counsel has failed to make out a case for cancellation of bail and the mere fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City has granted bail to the respondent No. 1, the same cannot be cancelled as the petitioner has utterly failed to put forth the cogent or overwhelming circumstances which are necessary for order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. 10. Nowt has been brought to our notice from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the respondent has in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during intervening period. I do not find any strong ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent. 5 11. For these reasons, the petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail being bereft of merits and devoid of substance stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 1