Bail cancellation requires supervening circumstances demonstrating abuse of liberty, regardless of offence gravity.

The applicant (Victim X), a 20-year-old B.B.A. LL.B. student, sought the cancellation of regular bail granted to Respondent No. 1 (Ajay) by the Special Judge, Indore on 20/08/2025.

The Respondent was charged under Sections 87, 64, 65, 351(2), 319(2), 238, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, following allegations that he coerced the victim into traveling to Uttar Pradesh, took compromising photographs, and committed rape under the false pretext of marriage.

The applicant challenged the bail order on the grounds that it was passed mechanically without cogent reasons and without statutory notice to the victim under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

1. Whether the trial court's order granting bail was unsustainable due to a lack of reasoning and failure to provide notice to the victim under Section 483(2) of the BNSS.

2. Whether there exist supervening circumstances, such as witness intimidation or abuse of liberty, warranting the cancellation of the respondent's bail.

The Court applied the distinction between the grant and cancellation of bail, noting that cancellation requires "cogent, overwhelming, and supervening circumstances" demonstrating an abuse of liberty.

Section 483(2) of the BNSS regarding the victim's right to be heard, and Section 483(3) for the power to cancel bail.

Reference to precedents including Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, which establish that bail should only be cancelled if the court's discretion was exercised arbitrarily or if the accused interfered with the administration of justice.

The Court observed that the prosecutrix was a major and a law student, possessing the maturity to understand the consequences of her actions.

Primacy was given to evidence showing the parties were in a voluntary relationship, including undisputed photographs of the victim wearing traditional matrimonial symbols like sindoor and mangalsutra.

Regarding the procedural challenge, the Court found Section 483(2) of the BNSS inapplicable because the victim's age (20 years) excluded the matter from the specific rigors of Section 65 of the BNS.

The Court noted that the respondent had no criminal antecedents and the applicant failed to provide any evidence of the respondent violating bail conditions, threatening witnesses, or tampering with evidence since his release.

The Court distinguished the applicant’s cited precedents, noting they applied to the initial grant of bail or instances of blatant abuse, neither of which were present here.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s order, concluding that the lack of supervening circumstances and the nature of the association between the parties did not justify interfering with the respondent's liberty, and the M.Cr.C. was dismissed.