After Sessions Court rejects bail cancellation, remedy lies in inherent jurisdiction, not a second Section 483(3) application.

Respondent No. 2 was granted bail by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, on 6 March 2025 in Crime No. 188/2024, registered for offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326 and 506 (Part II) read with Section 34 IPC; the related Sessions Trial No. 50/2024 was pending before that court.

The applicant/complainant thereafter sought cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), alleging that respondent No. 2 had violated the bail condition restraining him from committing a similar offence after his release.

The Sessions Court dismissed the application on 14 February 2026, holding that cancellation of bail required compelling and extremely special circumstances.

The applicant then filed the present application under Section 483(3) BNSS before the High Court, seeking cancellation of bail and setting aside of the Sessions Court’s order.

Whether an application under Section 483(3) BNSS is maintainable before the High Court after an application for cancellation of bail on the same grounds has already been rejected by the Court of Session?

Whether the applicant should challenge the Sessions Court’s rejection order by invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS rather than filing a second application under Section 483(3) BNSS?

Section 483(3) BNSS, analogous to Section 439(2) CrPC, confers concurrent power on the High Court and the Court of Session to direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody.

Although there is no statutory bar against directly approaching the High Court, judicial discipline ordinarily requires the litigant to first approach the lower forum in the hierarchy.

Where the Sessions Court rejects a cancellation application, the appropriate ordinary remedy is to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, since an order granting or refusing bail, and an order under Section 439(2) CrPC/Section 483(3) BNSS, is interlocutory and generally not amenable to revision.

The Court relied on Puran v. Rambilas, AIR 2001 SC 2023, Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2014) 16 SCC 263, Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 2827, and Abhimanue v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2037.

It further applied the distinction between cancellation of bail for subsequent misconduct or violation of conditions and setting aside an illegal, perverse or unjustified bail order.

The applicant had already chosen the appropriate initial forum—the Sessions Court—to seek cancellation of bail on the basis of respondent No. 2’s alleged subsequent violation of bail conditions.

Once that application was rejected, filing another application under the same statutory provision before the High Court, seeking substantially the same relief, was procedurally inappropriate.

The High Court’s concurrent jurisdiction under Section 483(3) BNSS was not treated as extinguished; however, judicial discipline and the nature of the challenge required the applicant to assail the Sessions Court’s order through the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

The case did not involve a direct challenge to the original bail order on grounds of perversity or patent illegality; rather, it concerned alleged subsequent misuse of liberty.

Accordingly, the High Court declined to exercise Section 483(3) jurisdiction to re-examine the same cancellation request.

The application was dismissed, but the applicant was granted liberty to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS in accordance with law.

No cancellation of respondent No. 2’s bail was ordered.