Bail cancellation requires cogent circumstances and cannot be ordered based on unsubstantiated allegations of witness intimidation.

The Applicant moved the High Court under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Respondents No. 2 and 3 on January 16, 2026, in Cr.A. No. 14363/2024.

The underlying criminal case (Crime No. 430/2024) involved charges under Sections 296, 351(3), and 308(2) of the BNS and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act.

The Applicant alleged that since their release, the respondents had continuously threatened her to force a compromise, leading her to file multiple police complaints between January and June 2025.

The State and the Respondents contested these claims, asserting that the police investigations found the allegations of threats to be unsubstantiated.

1. Whether the respondents violated the conditions of their bail or misused their liberty by threatening the complainant.

2. Whether the circumstances presented by the Applicant met the threshold of "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" required for the cancellation of bail.

Section 483(3) of the BNSS regarding the power to cancel bail.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, which held that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner and requires "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" such as interference with the due course of justice or abuse of concession.

Bhuri Bai v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which established that the power of cancellation must be exercised with "extreme care and circumspection" and should not be treated as a disciplinary proceeding against the accused unless their liberty counteracts the requirements of a fair trial.

The court evaluated the material on record, specifically a letter dated January 26, 2026, from the SHO of Kolar Road, Bhopal, which indicated that despite the Applicant's complaints, she had failed to appear before the police to provide evidence, leading the police to conclude that the allegations of threats were not true and the complaints were closed.

The court noted that the respondents had not violated any specific bail conditions and had provided a formal undertaking to the court that they would not threaten the complainant in the future.

Applying the restrictive principles laid down in Dolat Ram and Bhuri Bai, the court reasoned that the mere filing of complaints, which were subsequently found to be unsubstantiated by the investigating authorities, did not constitute sufficient grounds to interfere with the respondents' liberty.

The High Court dismissed the application for cancellation of bail, thereby allowing the order dated January 16, 2026, in Cr.A. No. 14363/2024 to stand.