Bail cannot be cancelled absent cogent, overwhelming circumstances or supervening events.

The petitioner/complainant sought cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 483(3) of the BNSS, granted to respondent No. 2 by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, through order dated 29 April 2026 in Bail Application No. 241/2026.

The deceased, Utkarsh Shivhare, allegedly died by consuming sulphas tablets. During the inquiry and investigation, allegations were made against his father-in-law, respondent No. 2, and other relatives that they had subjected the deceased to continuous mental harassment, demanded money, and instigated him to commit suicide.

Respondent No. 2 was arrested on 25 April 2026 and was subsequently enlarged on bail.

The petitioner contended that the deceased had left a suicide video containing allegations against respondent No. 2 and that the Sessions Court had improperly relied upon a representation allegedly submitted by respondent No. 2’s daughter regarding harassment by her in-laws, as well as allegedly forged and fabricated documents.

The State supported the petitioner’s prayer for cancellation of bail.

The Court applied Section 439(2) of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 483(3) of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody.

It distinguished between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted.

Relying on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Court held that cancellation requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with the due course of justice, evasion of justice, abuse of the concession of bail, or a possibility of absconding; bail should not ordinarily be cancelled without supervening circumstances making the accused’s continued liberty inconsistent with a fair trial.

The Court also relied on Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956, which reiterates that bail cannot be cancelled lightly and that the power must be exercised with extreme care and circumspection, particularly in the absence of misuse of liberty or violation of bail conditions.

The Court examined the Sessions Court’s bail order and found that bail had been granted on consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without any specific reference to or reliance upon the alleged representation or other documents relied upon by the petitioner.

Consequently, the petitioner’s principal allegation—that bail had been obtained through forged and fabricated documents and that the Sessions Court had relied upon them—was not supported by the impugned order.

Applying the stricter standard applicable to cancellation of already-granted bail, the Court held that the allegations concerning the suicide video, the merits of the prosecution case, the early stage of investigation, and the alleged defence version did not, in the circumstances, establish any cogent, overwhelming, or supervening ground for cancellation.

There was also no demonstrated misuse of liberty, interference with witnesses, obstruction of investigation, or violation of bail conditions.

The allegation that the Sessions Court had relied upon forged or fabricated documents was found unsupported because the bail order contained no reference to such documents.

Accordingly, the application seeking cancellation of bail granted on 29 April 2026 was dismissed as meritless, and the bail order remained undisturbed.