$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 969/2026 AMIT ASWAL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sonam Priya, Mr. Sahil, Advocate. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP. Mr Ved Vyas Tripathi and Mr Vaibhav Verma, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. The present petition has been preferred seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to respondent No.2/accused vide order dated 26.11.2025 [“Impugned Order”] passed by the Additional Sessions Judge [Special Court: Electricity], South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Bail Application No. 2351/2025. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order granting regular bail deserves to be set aside primarily on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL] report, particularly with respect to the disputed signatures and documents, is still awaited and, therefore, the investigation has not attained finality. Secondly, it is urged that the bank accounts allegedly used in the commission of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:19:13 offence have not yet been effectively seized/frozen and there exists a possibility of their misuse by the accused, thereby warranting cancellation of the concession of bail. 3. The Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 granting regular bail reveals that respondent No. 2 was working as an Assistant Manager [Accounts] with the complainant organisation and is alleged to have committed financial fraud and forgery in collusion with other co- accused persons. The FIR was registered on 28.12.2023, whereas the respondent was arrested only on 24.09.2025. 5. The Trial Court, in the impugned order, has specifically noticed that during the intervening period, respondent No. 2 had joined the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency. The Court noted that the specimen signatures and handwriting of the respondent had already been obtained for forensic examination. The order further records that custodial interrogation of the respondent was no longer necessary. The relevant observations are extracted below: “It is also not disputed that applicant has joined investigation prior to his arrest. Further, IO has also mentioned in his reply that specimen/admitted handwriting of the applicant has been collected and now, it would be sent to FSL along with forged cheques for handwriting expert opinion. Further, it is also mentioned that intimation has been sent to banks to freeze all the bank accounts, where misappropriated amount was deposited. In view of above, it appears that entire incriminating material has already been seized from the applicant and FSL report/handwriting expert opinion may take some time.” 6. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the well-settled This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:19:13 distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after the accused has been enlarged on bail. In Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana,1the Supreme Court underscored the scope of interference in cancellation of bail, in the following observation: “4. 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 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” [Emphasis Supplied] 7. It would, however, be an incomplete statement of the law to hold that the power to interfere with an order granting bail is confined only to cases of supervening circumstances. The law on the subject has developed along two distinct, though occasionally overlapping, tracks. The first track, illustrated by Daulat Ram (supra), concerns withdrawal of a concession on account of conduct or events after the grant of bail. The second track concerns a challenge to the correctness of the original order itself, on the ground that it 1(1995) 1 SCC 349 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:19:13 was passed in ignorance of material facts, in disregard of binding principles, or otherwise suffers from perversity or illegality, a challenge that does not depend upon anything happening after the grant of bail at all. This second track finds early recognition in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh2, and was explained with clarity in Puran v. Rambilas3, in the following terms:- “The concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation.” 8. The existence of this second, independent track was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P.4, where it was held in express terms that “cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrenceof supervening circumstances” and that the Court possesses inherent power and discretion to cancel or set aside bail even in the absence of any supervening circumstance, where the original order itself is shown to be unsustainable. The Court proceeded to lay down, by way of illustration and not exhaustively, the circumstances in which such interference would be warranted even absent any subsequent misconduct. Paragraph no. 31 is reproduced as under:- “31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled: - (a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record. 2(2002) 3 SCC 598. 3(2001) 6 SCC 338. 4(2022) 8 SCC 559. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:19:13 (b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim. (c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail. (d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. (e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. (f) Where the grant of the bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for the bail and thus cannot be justified. (g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case. 9. The precise contours of this dichotomy were, more recently, articulated with considerable clarity by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj5, Relevant Paragraph no. 8 is reproduced as under:- “The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted.” 10. This position has since been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan6, and in Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh7, wherein it has been authoritatively clarified that cancellation of bail 5(2023) 17 SCC 510. 62025 INSC 979. 72025 INSC 1367. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:19:13 on account of post-bail misconduct stands on a fundamentally different footing from annulment of a bail order that is itself unjustified or legally unsustainable at its inception, and that an order granting bail is liable to be interfered with, without the necessity of waiting for supervening circumstances, where it reveals reliance on irrelevant considerations, ignores relevant material on record, or otherwise suffers from perversity. 11. Applying the illustrative circumstances enumerated in Deepak Yadav (supra) to the impugned order, it is evident that none of them is attracted. In the facts of the present case the reasons which weighed with the Trial Court while granting regular bail cannot be said to be either perverse or irrelevant. Firstly, the respondent had remained available to the Investigating Agency. Secondly,the necessarymaterial, namelyspecimen signatures and handwriting of the respondent for obtaining expert opinion had already been secured. Thirdly,intimation had been issued to the concerned banks for freezing of the accounts in which the alleged misappropriated amounts had been deposited. 12. The mere pendency of the FSL report cannot, by itself, furnish a ground to cancel bail. Once the specimen signatures and handwriting had already been obtained and preserved, the forensic examination was to proceed independently and its pendency did not create any necessity for further custodial detention. 13. Equally, the contention that the relevant bank accounts have not been seized does not advance the petitioner's case. The material on record indicates that the Investigating Officer has already communicated with the concerned bank for freezing of the accounts. The petitioner has not placed any material to indicate that the respondent has, either prior to or after the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:19:13 grant of bail, operated the said accounts, diverted funds or otherwise acted in a manner which would necessitate his continued custodial detention. 14. Once the order granting bail is found to be based on relevant considerations and does not suffer from perversity or manifest illegality, interference by this Court in proceedings seeking cancellation of bail is extremely limited. 15. As of now, the final charge-sheet has not been submitted, but the investigation had substantially progressed. This Court, therefore, finds that the respondent has cooperated with the investigation, the necessity for custodial interrogation no longer survives, and no supervening circumstance has been brought on record which would justify withdrawal of the concession of bail granted by theTrial Court. 16. The impugned order granting bail does not warrant interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 & 483(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 22, 2026 Aks/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:19:13