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

The applicant sought cancellation under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) of the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, by order dated 4 September 2025 in B.A. No. 3093/2025.

The applicant alleged that Khushboo Tiwari, the sister of the respondents, concealed her subsisting marriage with Vinay Dubey and married him on 18 June 2021.

According to the applicant, the respondents knew of the earlier marriage, participated in and facilitated the subsequent marriage, and thereafter threatened and abused the applicant and his family.

On the basis of the complaint and supporting documents, the Trial Court took cognizance of offences under Sections 494, 495, 294 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The applicant contended that the respondents’ anticipatory bail might enable them to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or evade the proceedings.

The respondents opposed cancellation, asserting that no specific overt act, breach of bail conditions, misuse of liberty, or interference with the administration of justice had been established.

Whether the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should be cancelled under Section 483(3) of the BNSS on the basis of the allegations concerning concealment of Khushboo Tiwari’s previous marriage and the respondents’ alleged participation in the subsequent marriage.

Whether the allegations of threats, intimidation, witness influence, evidence tampering, or possible evasion of proceedings constituted sufficient supervening or compelling circumstances for cancellation of bail.

Section 483(3) of the BNSS empowers the High Court to direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody; however, cancellation of bail requires cogent and substantial grounds.

Anticipatory bail, once granted by a competent court after consideration of the relevant material, should not ordinarily be cancelled merely because another view of the facts is possible.

Relevant grounds include misuse of the liberty granted, violation of bail conditions, interference with witnesses or evidence, obstruction of the administration of justice, evasion of the process of law, or other compelling supervening circumstances.

The alleged substantive offences were under Sections 494, 495, 294 and 420 of the IPC.

The Court held that the allegations concerning the respondents’ knowledge of Khushboo Tiwari’s previous marriage and their alleged participation in the marriage ceremony required appreciation of evidence at trial.

Their presence at the ceremony or participation in marriage rituals, even if established through photographs, did not conclusively prove knowledge of the subsisting earlier marriage or intentional facilitation of the alleged offences.

The applicant also failed to produce sufficient material showing that, after the grant of anticipatory bail, the respondents had threatened or influenced witnesses, tampered with evidence, misused their liberty, or obstructed the proceedings.

The respondents’ residence in Gujarat and the applicant’s apprehension that they might evade the process were considered insufficient, by themselves, to justify cancellation.

In the absence of a violation of bail conditions, misuse of liberty, or other supervening circumstance, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Sessions Court’s order.

It held that the allegations relating to concealment of the previous marriage and the respondents’ role were matters for evidentiary determination and did not establish grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

Since no misuse of liberty, breach of bail conditions, interference with the administration of justice, or other compelling circumstance was demonstrated, the application under Section 483(3) of the BNSS was dismissed, and the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed to continue.