Bail cancellation requires cogent circumstances; vague allegations of threats without specific instances are insufficient.

The applicant (prosecutrix) lodged FIR No. 6 of 2025 at Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, against respondent No. 2 (Jebo and Tek Chand) under Sections 376, 504, and 506 of the IPC.

She alleged that while working as a maid for the accused, respondent Tek Chand developed physical relations with her, resulting in the birth of a child, after which she was expelled from their house.

On March 18, 2025, the High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the accused persons subject to conditions, including the mandate not to induce, threat, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

The applicant filed the present applications under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking cancellation of said bail.

She alleged that the accused were threatening her with dire consequences to force a compromise and had tampered with evidence.

The accused denied all allegations.

1. Whether the applicant established "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances" necessary to justify the cancellation of bail already granted by the Court

2. Whether the allegations of threatening and tampering with evidence were sufficiently specific to prove a violation of bail conditions

The court applied Section 483(3) of the BNSS regarding the power to cancel bail

bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner and requires proof of "supervening circumstances" such as interference with the administration of justice or abuse of the concession of liberty (Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana (1995))

bail can be cancelled if the granting order was perverse, based on irrelevant material, or ignored relevant material (Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat (2008))

The Court observed that following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet had already been filed against the accused.

Upon reviewing the applicant's representation to the District Legal Services Authority and the present petition, the Court found the allegations to be "vague" and "general" in nature.

Specifically, the applicant failed to mention any specific dates, times, or instances where the alleged threats or pressurization occurred.

the Court noted that the applicant had not lodged any formal police complaint regarding these alleged post-bail threats.

the high threshold for cancellation—requiring "overwhelming circumstances" as per Dolat Ram—was not met because the accusations remained unsubstantiated and lacked the specificity required to prove a violation of the court-imposed conditions.

The High Court dismissed the petitions, maintaining the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents.