Anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled absent cogent evidence of misuse or supervening circumstances.

The applicant, complainant Jitendra Tiwari, sought cancellation under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) of the anticipatory bail granted to Respondents 1 and 2 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, by order dated 20 August 2025 in B.A. No. 2877/2025.

The applicant alleged that Respondent 1, Khusboo Tiwari, concealed her subsisting earlier marriage and married him on 18 June 2021, without obtaining a divorce from her former husband. Respondent 2, her mother, was alleged to have knowingly assisted the conduct.

The Magistrate took cognizance against Respondent 1 under Sections 494, 495, 294 and 420 of the IPC, and against Respondent 2 under Section 420 of the IPC.

For cancellation of bail, the applicant alleged that Respondent 1 had suppressed the existence of Crime No. 0259/2024, registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000, had evaded investigation, and might interfere with the proceedings or abscond because the respondents resided in Ahmedabad.

The respondents disputed the allegations and contended that no condition of bail had been violated and that no misuse of liberty or supervening circumstance had been established.

Whether the alleged concealment of Respondent 1’s earlier marriage, the alleged knowledge and involvement of Respondent 2, and the related matrimonial proceedings justified cancellation of anticipatory bail?

Whether the alleged suppression of Crime No. 0259/2024 and Respondent 1’s alleged evasion of investigation constituted misuse of liberty or another cogent ground for cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) BNSS?

Whether the applicant established any subsequent violation of bail conditions, interference with the administration of justice, evasion of the judicial process, or other supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of anticipatory bail?

Section 483(3) of the BNSS empowers the High Court to consider cancellation of bail, including anticipatory bail, where cogent and substantial grounds are established.

Cancellation ordinarily requires circumstances such as misuse of the liberty granted, breach of bail conditions, interference with witnesses or evidence, obstruction of the investigation or trial, evasion of the process of law, or another supervening circumstance.

Allegations that concern disputed facts or the merits of the prosecution case are generally matters for evidence and cannot, without more, justify cancellation.

The seriousness of the alleged offences may be relevant at the stage of granting bail but, in the absence of subsequent misuse of liberty or breach of conditions, does not by itself warrant cancellation.

The Court cited no specific judicial precedent.

The Court held that the allegations regarding the subsistence of Respondent 1’s earlier marriage, Respondent 2’s knowledge, and the matrimonial proceedings were essentially evidentiary disputes and could not be conclusively determined in cancellation proceedings.

The applicant did not place sufficient material to establish that Respondent 1 deliberately suppressed Crime No. 0259/2024 before the Sessions Court or obtained anticipatory bail by fraud.

Her alleged abscondence during investigation was also disputed and, without proof that it constituted misuse of the liberty granted in the present case, was insufficient for cancellation.

The institution of separate domestic-violence and matrimonial proceedings at Ahmedabad did not, by itself, amount to misuse of bail.

Further, no specific instance of breach of bail conditions, witness intimidation, tampering with evidence, obstruction of proceedings, or evasion of the Court was shown.

The apprehension based merely on the respondents’ residence at Ahmedabad was held to be speculative.

It found no cogent or substantial ground, supervening circumstance, breach of bail condition, or misuse of liberty warranting interference with the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court.

The application under Section 483(3) BNSS for cancellation of anticipatory bail was therefore dismissed.