Bail cancellation requires proof of perversity or post-bail misconduct, notwithstanding the gravity of alleged offences.

The prosecution sought the cancellation of bail orders dated 08.09.2025, 23.09.2025, and 27.10.2025, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, in connection with a murder case registered under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 61(2), 318(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The deceased was allegedly lured to the respondent's brick kiln following a land dispute, where he was allegedly killed by hired assassins after being drugged with sleeping pills.

The trial court repeatedly granted the respondent "interim bail" and extended it on multiple occasions without deciding the regular bail application on merit.

The prosecution contended that the respondent is influential, financially powerful, and a flight risk, having briefly fled to Guwahati after the incident.

1. Whether the repeated grant of interim bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge without deciding the regular bail application on merit was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the bail granted to the respondent is liable to be cancelled based on the gravity of the offence, the nature of the evidence, and the potential for witness tampering.

The Court primarily considered the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 regarding bail.

It relied on the principles for bail cancellation established in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. (2025), emphasizing that the seriousness of the offence is a significant factor.

It further applied Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat (2020) and Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), which distinguish between the cancellation of bail due to post-bail misconduct and the challenge to a bail order on grounds of perversity or arbitrary exercise of discretion.

Finally, it invoked Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi (2001) regarding the broad principles for granting bail, including the nature of accusations and the severity of punishment.

The High Court first censured the Addl. Sessions Judge for the improper procedural practice of repeatedly extending interim bail instead of deciding the regular bail application on its merits.

Upon reviewing the merits of the investigation, the Court found the prosecution's case to be based entirely on circumstantial evidence with significant gaps.

Critically, the autopsy surgeon failed to provide a definitive opinion on whether the death was homicidal, and forensic tests on bloodstains and fingerprints collected from the scene were inconclusive.

The Court noted that while the respondent visited Guwahati shortly after the incident, he was arrested promptly upon return, mitigating the absconding claim.

Since the respondent had no prior criminal record and was a permanent resident, the Court determined that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any post-bail misconduct or perversity in the lower court’s decision that would necessitate cancellation.

The petition for cancellation of bail was rejected, with a clarification that the observations made would not influence the final trial.