Bail cancellation requires proof of supervening circumstances or bail condition violations, not mere registration of subsequent FIRs.

The respondent, Raja Saha, was accused of demanding ₹2 crores and threatening the informant and her family in connection with a 2018 land transaction, leading to the registration of East Agartala P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024

The Learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the respondent pre-arrest bail on 18.11.2024, observing that no materials existed to attract Sections 109 and 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The State filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking cancellation of bail on two grounds: first, that the initial order was perverse and failed to consider the gravity of the offense; and second, that the respondent violated bail conditions by threatening a witness, Dipa Dasgupta, on 25.09.2025

By the time of this hearing, the Trial Court had already framed charges against the respondent and he had secured regular bail

1. Whether the order granting pre-arrest bail was perverse or illegal due to the trial court's observation on the non-applicability of certain penal sections.

2. Whether the respondent’s subsequent conduct and the alleged involvement in a new FIR constitute sufficient "supervening circumstances" to warrant the cancellation of bail.

Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) regarding inherent powers to set aside perverse orders

Principle from State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan and Ajwar v. Waseem to distinguish between the annulment of a perverse bail order and the cancellation of bail due to post-grant conduct.

The principle from Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat, which establishes that cancellation requires "cogent and overwhelming reasons" such as tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

Renjith v. State of Kerala, which clarifies that the mere registration of a subsequent FIR does not result in automatic cancellation of bail.

The Court noted that while the Trial Court had initially expressed doubts about Sections 109 and 308(5) of the BNS, it eventually framed charges under those very sections, indicating that the respondent was not exonerated from the gravity of the allegations

The Court highlighted a significant "long delay" in the State’s application: the bail was granted in November 2024, the alleged witness intimidation occurred in September 2025, and the petition for cancellation was not filed until December 2025. The State failed to provide any explanation for this delay.

Applying the relevant precedents, the Court found that the prosecution did not present "cogent materials" or evidence of a breach of liberty that would outweigh the respondent's right to freedom, especially since regular bail had already been granted and the case had progressed to the trial stage

The petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed. The Court directed the Trial Court to prioritize the disposal of the trial and ordered the return of the Case Diary to the Investigating Officer.