Department fails to prove bail condition violations, anticipatory bail cancellation application dismissed

The Patiala House Courts dismissed the department's application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused. The court examined five bail conditions: passport deposit, prior intimation before leaving NCR, non-engagement in similar offences, cooperation in investigation, and departmental refund. The court found no willful violation of passport-related conditions, noting only one instance of failure to provide prior intimation due to medical emergency warranted a warning. The accused cooperated with investigation by appearing when summoned and providing statements. No evidence showed violation of refund conditions or engagement in similar offences post-bail. The department failed to establish cogent grounds for bail cancellation.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused based on alleged violations of specific conditions.

Condition No. 2 - Deposit of Passport:
The applicant argued that the accused did not deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer (IO) as directed. The defense counsel explained that the accused's passport had expired in 1998 and was not renewed. The IO confirmed not having any information on a renewed or new passport. The court noted that there was no willful concealment by the accused, and the IO could further investigate. No violation of this condition was found post-bail order.

Condition No. 3 - Prior Intimation on Leaving NCR:
The accused left NCR without prior intimation to the IO, which was acknowledged. The defense cited a medical urgency as the reason for the departure. The court considered this a one-time violation and warned the accused, noting his compliance with other investigative aspects.

Condition No. 4 - No Offense or Witness Influence:
Allegations of witness influence were raised by the applicant. The defense clarified that the co-accused being influenced was not a witness but another accused. The accused admitted to destroying evidence before the bail order, but no post-bail violations were reported.

Condition No. 5 - Cooperation in Investigation:
The applicant claimed the accused did not cooperate or provide necessary information. The defense countered, stating the accused had participated in investigations on multiple dates, which the IO confirmed. The court found no basis for alleging non-cooperation.

Condition No. 6 - Refund of Amount to Department:
The applicant disputed the accused's claim of refunding Rs. 18 crores, citing discrepancies. The defense presented evidence of the amount being debited against the GST registration and reversed back to the Department. The court concluded that this condition was not violated based on the evidence presented.

Legal Precedent:
The judgment referenced the principles from Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana regarding bail cancellation, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds. The court found the applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for bail cancellation.

Conclusion:
After detailed consideration of each condition and the arguments presented, the court dismissed the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, deeming it not maintainable. The judgment highlighted the lack of substantial grounds for the requested cancellation.

---