In SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1, as the CBI failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the need for his arrest. The court cited Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana and outlined the circumstances that justify the cancellation of bail. No supervening circumstances were pointed out for the cancellation of bail by the CBI or complainant. The court summarized the parameters that can be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the applicant, and the possibility of fleeing from justice.
The court also observed that cancellation of bail required “cogent and overwhelming” reasons, such as interference with the administration of justice, evasion of justice, or abuse of the concession granted to the accused. The court emphasized that bail should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering supervening circumstances.
Central Bureau of Investigation … Appellant
VERSUS
Santosh Karnani & Anr. … Respondents decided by the Supreme Court of India on 17.04.23