Aviation Services LLC v. State, 2026

The case involves a ₹6.05-crore cheating and forgery case investigated by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi Police.

The accused had been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court after detailed consideration of his role.

Subsequently, the bail of co-accused persons was either granted or denied.

The complainant company moved a petition seeking cancellation of the accused’s anticipatory bail, alleging that:

• The accused was enjoying proceeds of crime while on bail.

• The subsequent denial of bail to co-accused diluted parity considerations.

The High Court examined whether subsequent developments regarding co-accused could amount to a “supervening circumstance” justifying cancellation of bail.

The bench noted that there was no allegation of violation of bail conditions, non-cooperation, tampering with evidence, or misuse of liberty by the accused.

The Court emphasized the distinction between recall and cancellation of bail, stating that mere re-appreciation of merits is impermissible.

The Court emphasized judicial restraint, discouraging litigants from re-litigating merits after bail has been granted.

Reinforced the principle that bail is a right, not a discretionary favor, and can only be revoked on concrete grounds.

Distinction between recall vs. cancellation of bail protects accused from arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Reaffirms that mere developments in co-accused cases or parity considerations cannot override prior judicial assessment.

Strengthens rule of law and procedural fairness in white-collar economic offence cases.

The decision provides clarity for anticipatory bail jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving multiple accused.