Anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled absent cogent evidence of post-grant misuse or interference.

The applicant sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos. 2–4—Kulendra Kumar Patel, Khorbaharin Patel and Shruti Patel—in Crime No. 165/2025 registered at Police Station Pandatarai, District Kabirdham, for offences under Sections 118(1), 191(2), 296 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The respondents had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on 25 November 2025 in MCRCA No. 1849/2025 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The applicant alleged that the respondents had obtained bail by suppressing or misrepresenting their previous criminal antecedents: an additional case allegedly existed against respondent No. 3, and an additional Crime No. 156/2019 allegedly existed against respondent No. 2 beyond the cases disclosed in the bail application.

The State opposed cancellation, contending that the earlier bail order disclosed no infirmity or jurisdictional error.

1. Whether anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos. 2–4 should be cancelled on the ground that they allegedly concealed or misstated their previous criminal antecedents while seeking bail.

2. Whether the record disclosed any post-bail conduct—such as interference with investigation, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, repeated criminal activity, absconding or obstruction of a fair trial—justifying cancellation of bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail.

It reiterated that cancellation of bail, once granted, requires “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances,” and that an accused’s liberty should not be lightly interfered with.

Relying on Kailash Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 861/2025, decided on 20 February 2025, the Court held that cancellation ordinarily requires material demonstrating post-bail misconduct, such as interference with the investigation, witness intimidation, evidence tampering or deliberate delay of trial.

The Court further stated that anticipatory bail may be cancelled where the accused misuses liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity, obstructs investigation, tampers with evidence, threatens witnesses, is likely to flee, goes underground, becomes unavailable to the investigating agency, or places himself beyond the reach of his surety.

Once bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled merely because another view is possible.

The Court examined the earlier anticipatory-bail order and the materials produced in the cancellation petition.

Although the applicant alleged concealment of additional criminal cases, the record did not establish, even prima facie, that respondent Nos. 2–4 had misused their liberty after the grant of bail, tampered with evidence, threatened witnesses, interfered with the investigation, or obstructed a fair and impartial trial.

Applying the stringent standard governing cancellation of bail, the Court held that the alleged antecedent-related grounds did not constitute the required “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances.”

It further characterized the cancellation plea as an afterthought aimed at securing withdrawal of the anticipatory bail.

The CRMP was accordingly disposed of.

The trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial and endeavour to conclude it preferably within six months, subject to there being no legal impediment.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial Court for information and compliance.