Bail cancelled after accused falsely claimed High Court had allowed a fresh plea following commitment of the case

The petitioner, husband of the deceased and a co-accused in Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 105 of 2022, sought cancellation of Amit Kumar’s bail.

Amit’s bail application had been rejected by the Sessions Court and then by the High Court on 3 October 2024, which found specific allegations against him based on case-diary material and call records.

On 15 January 2025, the Sessions Court granted Amit bail, recording his assertion that the High Court’s earlier order contemplated that bail could be granted after cognizance and commitment.

The petitioner contended that this misrepresented the High Court’s order and that bail had been granted on the same material, without a material change in circumstances.

Amit argued, among other things, that the grant of bail to the petitioner and the commitment of the case constituted changed circumstances, and that he had not misused bail.

Whether Amit’s bail order was obtained by misrepresenting the High Court’s order of 3 October 2024

Whether the Sessions Court could grant bail on the same material, without a substantial change in the fact-situation, after the High Court had rejected Amit’s earlier bail application

Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to cancel bail; the Court treated the provision as encompassing the setting aside of a bail order vitiated by an infirmity at its inception, distinct from cancellation for post-release misconduct.

Under Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., an unjustified, illegal or perverse bail order may be set aside without proof of subsequent misconduct; Puran v. Rambilas and Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab support setting aside bail obtained through suppression or misrepresentation of material facts.

Under State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, a successive bail application may be considered, but judicial discipline requires the court to account for the earlier rejection and to rely on fresh grounds or a substantial change in circumstances; a subordinate court cannot effectively overrule a superior court’s decision on an unchanged factual record.

The Court also relied on the principle that parity is not mechanical and requires consideration of the accused’s individual role.

The High Court found that its 3 October 2024 order was an unconditional rejection of bail and contained no direction, observation or liberty permitting a renewed application after commitment. The Sessions Court’s order itself recorded the contrary assertion, which the High Court held was a material misrepresentation that facilitated the grant of bail.

The Sessions Court had also granted bail only three months after the High Court’s rejection, without identifying any substantial change in circumstances; commitment was merely procedural, and the case-diary material relied on by the Sessions Court was already before the High Court.

The asserted parity with the petitioner was misplaced because the accused faced distinct allegations, and the petitioner’s bail order itself relied substantially on material implicating Amit.

Since the challenge concerned defects in the original grant of bail, Amit’s subsequent compliance with bail conditions did not cure the order’s infirmity.

Amit was directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks, failing which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, was to take steps in accordance with law to secure his arrest. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and did not express an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.