Bail cancellation requires supervening misuse, compelling circumstances, or patent illegality in the original bail order.

The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 and his co-accused defrauded her of ₹56 lakh in 2016.

Following repeated representations and a recommendation by the Senior Superintendent of Police, FIR No. 136 dated 18.07.2021 was registered at Police Station Phase-I, District SAS Nagar, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 318 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act.

During the inquiry, the accused allegedly acknowledged liability and entered into a compromise undertaking repayment.

Respondent No. 2 issued eight cheques, all of which were dishonoured, leading the petitioner to file eight complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Respondent No. 2 was arrested on 23.04.2026 and was granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, on 08.07.2026.

The petitioner sought cancellation of that bail under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., alleging that the bail order failed to consider the alleged admission of liability, dishonoured cheques, pending proceedings, and the accused’s alleged avoidance of service.

Whether the regular bail granted to respondent No. 2 was liable to be cancelled under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

Whether the petitioner established any misuse of the liberty of bail, supervening circumstance, or patent illegality, perversity, or material non-consideration in the bail order warranting cancellation.

Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., empowers the High Court or Court of Session to cancel bail, but cancellation operates on a distinct and narrower footing than refusal of bail at the threshold.

Bail may ordinarily be cancelled only upon cogent, compelling, and overwhelming circumstances, such as misuse of liberty, interference with the administration of justice, tampering with evidence, threatening or influencing witnesses, evasion of the process of law, violation of bail conditions, or bail obtained through fraud or suppression of material facts.

Relying on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349, the Court held that bail cannot be cancelled mechanically merely because another view is possible; cancellation may be justified where the accused abuses the concession or where the original order is patently illegal, perverse, or materially infirm.

The petitioner’s allegations concerning the compromise, dishonoured cheques, pending complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and alleged avoidance of service related principally to the underlying dispute and the merits of the prosecution, rather than to any post-release misuse of bail.

The petitioner neither alleged nor demonstrated that respondent No. 2 had threatened witnesses, tampered with evidence, obstructed the investigation or trial, absconded after release, violated any bail condition, or otherwise abused the liberty granted.

Nor was any supervening circumstance or patent illegality, perversity, or material non-consideration sufficient to invalidate the bail order established.

The Court therefore held that mere apprehension, unsupported by cogent material, could not justify cancellation of bail, and that the relevant allegations could be examined during trial without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The petition seeking cancellation of bail was dismissed.

All pending miscellaneous, ancillary, or connected applications were disposed of accordingly.