Bail cancellation and relaxation of bail conditions require material breach or changed circumstances; both requests were rejected.
Cancellation of bail requires proof of breach of bail conditions or material showing that continued liberty would jeopardise the trial; on the facts, no such conclusive material was shown, so the request to cancel bail was rejected. A restrictive bail condition limiting the accused to Kolkata could be modified only on a substantial change in circumstances or a demonstrated unjustified restraint; as no fresh justification was established and the condition continued to support witness protection and trial integrity, modification was refused. Delay in presenting the modification application, being limited to filing and causing no shown prejudice, was condoned.
Issues: (i) whether the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled; (ii) whether the condition restricting the accused to the city of Kolkata after release on bail should be modified; (iii) whether delay in presenting the modification application should be condoned.
Issue (i): whether the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled.
Analysis: Cancellation of bail requires a demonstrated breach of bail conditions or circumstances showing that continued liberty would imperil the trial. The application was founded mainly on apprehensions of influence over witnesses and alleged hostility in the prosecution evidence, but no conclusive material established that the accused had breached the terms of bail or that cancellation had become necessary at the then stage of trial. The Court also noted the progress already made in the trial.
Conclusion: The prayer for cancellation of bail was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the condition restricting the accused to the city of Kolkata after release on bail should be modified.
Analysis: A condition imposed while granting bail can be altered only on a substantial change in circumstances or where the restraint is shown to be unjustified. The Court held that the restrictive condition was part of the careful balance struck while enlarging the accused on bail, and no significant fresh circumstance had been shown to justify relaxation. The Court also accepted that the condition continued to serve the concern of witness protection and the integrity of the trial.
Conclusion: The prayer for modification of the bail condition was rejected.
Issue (iii): whether delay in presenting the modification application should be condoned.
Analysis: The delay related only to the presentation of the modification application and no prejudice was shown from condoning it.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned.
Final Conclusion: The criminal applications were finally disposed of by declining cancellation of bail and refusal to relax the bail restraint, while granting condonation of delay in the modification matter and leaving the trial court free to proceed in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
