Bail cancellation requires compelling grounds, such as perversity or post-release misuse of liberty.

The complainant/petitioner challenged an order granting regular bail to Respondent No. 2, Ganesh Chawla alias Sonu Chawla, in a case arising from FIR No. 126/2024, registered for offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 323 and 34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner contended that bail had been granted without notice to him and alleged that the Investigating Officer had prepared a false Section 161 CrPC statement in his name.

He also relied on an order allowing his protest petition and observing that a prima facie case was made out against the accused.

The Sessions Court’s bail order noted, among other matters, that witnesses had not implicated Respondent No. 2, his presence at the scene was doubtful, and his CDR did not place him at the incident location.

The petitioner sought cancellation of bail under Sections 482 and 439(2) CrPC.

1. Whether the order granting bail to Respondent No. 2 was illegal, perverse, or otherwise improper so as to warrant cancellation.

2. Whether any post-bail conduct or supervening circumstance justified cancellation of bail.

The Court considered the petition under Sections 482 and 439(2) CrPC.

Bail, once granted, should not be cancelled mechanically; cancellation is warranted where, for example, the grant order is illegal, perverse, unreasoned, or ignores relevant material, or where supervening circumstances or the accused’s post-bail conduct justify withdrawal of liberty.

Misuse of liberty, interference with the investigation, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or evasion of the process of law may support cancellation.

The Court relied on P v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (2022) 15 SCC 211; Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr., (2024) 10 SCC 768; and Sanjay Kumar Jangid & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 2381 of 2025.

The Court noted that the petitioner could not identify an error in the factual considerations recorded in the bail order, including the witness statements, the doubt about Respondent No. 2’s presence at the scene, and the CDR material.

It further found no subsequent incident showing misuse of liberty; the Investigating Officer confirmed that Respondent No. 2 was cooperating with the trial.

Applying the principles governing cancellation, the Court found neither perversity nor illegality in the bail order.

It dismissed the petition and the pending application.