Bail cancellation cannot be used as appellate review of a reasoned and judicious bail order.

The complainant, Navin Choudhary, lodged FIR No. 404/2025 at Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur, alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) against Satyanarayan Gupta and others.

During investigation, Gupta apprehended arrest and sought anticipatory bail. The Additional Sessions Judge granted him pre-arrest bail by order dated 24 October 2025. The complainant thereafter filed the present application under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking cancellation of bail.

The High Court noted that the alleged occurrence related to a period approximately fifteen years earlier, that the dispute had also been considered by a mediator, an arbitral forum, the Jaipur Development Authority and the National Company Law Tribunal, and that those proceedings had substantially resulted in findings favourable to the complainant or against the allegation of cheating.

The Sessions Court had also considered the accused’s antecedents, including negative final reports in 30 cases, quashing of proceedings in 14 cases, and quashing of one FIR by the High Court.

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge warranted cancellation under Section 483(3) BNSS on the ground that the court had failed to properly appreciate the facts, the seriousness of the allegations and the material on record.

2. Whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction over a bail-cancellation application, could reappraise the merits as though sitting in appeal over the order granting bail.

The Court applied Section 483(3) BNSS governing cancellation of bail and recognised that the Sessions Court and the High Court possess concurrent powers in relation to bail under Section 482 BNSS.

It reiterated the distinction between the parameters for granting bail and those for cancelling bail: cancellation is not ordinarily justified merely because another view on the merits is possible, particularly where bail was granted after judicial consideration of the relevant circumstances.

Relying on Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 AIR 372, the Court held that bail must be granted on settled principles and with regard to the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, antecedents, circumstances of the accused and the possibility of witness tampering.

The Court also referred to State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, Criminal Appeals Nos. 3528–3534 of 2025, for the governing principles concerning grant and cancellation of bail.

The High Court found that the Sessions Judge had adequately considered the FIR, the parties’ submissions, the material on record, the accused’s defence and the findings of other legal forums.

The Court attached significance to the unexplained fifteen-year delay in lodging the FIR and to the police factual report, which did not indicate the commission of fabrication or cheating by the accused.

It further noted that the offences were triable exclusively by a Magistrate and did not carry punishment of life imprisonment or death, while the delayed prosecution after proceedings before other forums could reasonably raise concerns of exaggeration, false implication or embellishment.

Since the Sessions Judge had exercised discretion judiciously and no supervening circumstance, misuse of liberty or other legally recognised ground for cancellation was established, the High Court held that it could not treat the cancellation application as an appellate challenge to the correctness of the bail order.

The application for cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) BNSS was accordingly dismissed, and the bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge was left undisturbed.