Subsequent Denial Of Bail To Co-Accused Not 'Supervening Circumstance' To Cancel Bail: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the subsequent denial of bail to co-accused persons cannot, by itself, be treated as a “supervening circumstance” warranting cancellation of bail already granted to an accused, in the absence of any allegation that the accused has misused the liberty granted by the court.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna thus dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a ₹6.05-crore cheating and forgery case investigated by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi Police.

The bench observed, “the mere fact that co-accused persons have been granted or denied Bail subsequently cannot, by itself, constitute a supervening circumstance justifying cancellation of Bail already granted to the Respondent, in the absence of misuse of liberty.”

The plea for cancellation of bail was moved by the complainant company, which alleged that despite incriminating material and the magnitude of the alleged offence, the accused continued to enjoy the proceeds of crime while on bail.

It was further argued that parity considerations relied upon by the Sessions Court stood diluted in view of subsequent developments relating to co-accused persons.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court drew a clear distinction between recall and cancellation of bail, reiterating that cancellation can be justified only on account of post-bail conduct such as violation of bail conditions, non-cooperation with investigation, tampering with evidence, or misuse of liberty.

In the case at hand, it noted, it was not the stand of the Complainant that the Respondent-accused had violated any condition of Bail or failed to join investigation.

It added that the Sessions Court, while granting anticipatory bail, had made a detailed analysis of the accused's role, before granting him bail.

Holding that now the Complainant essentially sought a re-appreciation of merits, which was not permissible, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Mr. B.K Singh, Mr. Narendra Kumar and Ms. Shattika Haldar, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Sanjeet Singh for Respondents

Case title: Aviation Services LLC v. State

Case no.: CRL.MC. 5484/2025

Click here to read order