A subsequent criminal case in breach of an express bail condition warrants cancellation of bail.

The appellant, the respondent No. 1’s wife, sought cancellation of bail granted to him on 22 May 2025 in an earlier appeal.

The bail order required him not to involve himself in any other criminal or similar case until disposal of the pending case.

The appellant alleged that, after the parties resumed living together, respondent No. 1 assaulted and abused her on 25 October 2025; a further case, Crime No. 90/2025, was registered.

Respondent No. 1 opposed cancellation, contending that the new allegations substantially repeated those in the earlier case and that bail cancellation required proof of misuse of liberty or similar grounds.

1. Whether respondent No. 1 violated the condition of his bail by becoming involved in a subsequent criminal case.

2. Whether that alleged violation warranted setting aside the earlier bail order.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Court applied the specific condition imposed when granting bail on 22 May 2025: the accused was not to involve himself in any other criminal or similar case until disposal of the pending case.

Although the State argued that bail should not be cancelled absent misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or comparable grounds, the judgment cited no precedent or separate legal test for cancellation; its decision rested on the finding that the express bail condition had been breached.

The Court compared the bail condition with the subsequent registration of Crime No. 90/2025.

It noted that the FIR was registered on 26 October 2025, after the bail order, and concluded that respondent No. 1 had violated the condition against involvement in another criminal case.

The judgment did not separately resolve the State’s contention that the later allegations duplicated the earlier case; it treated the subsequent FIR and the condition’s wording as sufficient to find a breach.

It set aside the bail order dated 22 May 2025 in Crl.A. No. 1056/2025 and directed the respondent police to take necessary steps in accordance with law concerning Crime No. 90/2025.