Anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled absent cogent, overwhelming circumstances demonstrating post-grant misuse of liberty.

The petitioner sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Ajay Ganesh Patel and Shantanu Ram Patel, by the High Court’s order dated 8 January 2026 in MCRCA No. 30 of 2026.

The anticipatory bail arose from 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, pursuant to an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner alleged that the accused had obtained bail by concealing previous criminal antecedents and by falsely stating that they had no such antecedents.

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

The Court considered the anticipatory bail granted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to offences under Sections 118(1), 191(2), 296 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It applied the settled principle that cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances and that personal liberty should not be lightly interfered with.

Relying on Kailash Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2025, decided on 20 February 2025, the Court held that bail should not be cancelled absent material showing post-bail misconduct, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or dilatory conduct.

The Court further identified recognised grounds for cancellation, including misuse of liberty through similar criminal activity, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence or witnesses, threats to witnesses, likelihood of absconding, becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, or placing oneself beyond the surety’s reach.

The Court found that the petitioner’s pleadings and documents did not establish, even prima facie, that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had misused their liberty, tampered with evidence, threatened witnesses, obstructed investigation, or impeded a fair trial.

Although concealment of antecedents was alleged, the material placed before the Court did not demonstrate circumstances sufficiently compelling to satisfy the stringent standard governing cancellation of bail.

The Court therefore treated the cancellation plea as an afterthought intended to secure revocation of the anticipatory bail and found no basis either to cancel the bail or to review or recall the earlier order.

The CRMP was accordingly disposed of.

The trial court was directed to proceed with the matter and endeavour to conclude the trial 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.