Bail cannot be cancelled absent cogent proof of misuse, intimidation, or changed circumstances.

The applicant filed a second application under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No. 1 by order dated 17 May 2024 in connection with Crime No. 488/2023 registered at Police Station Dhuma, District Seoni, for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 315 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

An earlier application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC had been dismissed on 9 March 2026 as premature because the charge-sheet had not then been filed.

The applicant alleged that respondent No. 1 had obtained bail by misrepresenting his age and falsely claiming the benefit of senior citizenship. She further alleged that, after being released on bail, he intimidated her and her family and assaulted her father within court premises, resulting in registration of FIR No. 428/2024 under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS

The respondent denied age misrepresentation, intimidation, witness tampering and breach of bail conditions, submitting that the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges did not independently justify cancellation of bail

Whether the alleged misrepresentation or suppression of respondent No. 1’s age constituted sufficient ground to cancel the bail granted earlier?

Whether the subsequent FIR alleging assault, threats and intimidation, together with the filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges, established misuse of bail or violation of bail conditions warranting cancellation of bail?

Whether any new or changed circumstance had arisen after dismissal of the earlier cancellation application so as to justify a second application for cancellation of bail?

The Court considered the application under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning cancellation of bail, and referred to the earlier application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Court also considered the statutory bail-related restrictions reflected in Section 437(3) of the CrPC, particularly the prohibition against intimidating or influencing witnesses and obstructing the course of justice

The governing principle applied was that bail should not be cancelled merely because the prosecution case has progressed; cancellation requires cogent and credible material showing fraud in obtaining bail, misuse of liberty, breach of bail conditions, witness intimidation, interference with the administration of justice, or a material supervening circumstance.

The Court held that the applicant’s reliance on the alleged age discrepancy did not establish fraud or deliberate suppression by respondent No. 1 when bail was granted

The allegations of threats, intimidation and interference were found to lack specific and credible supporting material, and the mere registration of FIR No. 428/2024 did not, by itself, prove misuse of bail or violation of its conditions

Similarly, the filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges represented procedural developments but did not independently justify cancellation in the absence of concrete evidence of witness tampering or obstruction of justice

The Court further found that no new or changed circumstance sufficient to warrant interference had been demonstrated after dismissal of the earlier cancellation application

The alleged age misrepresentation was not proved to constitute fraud, while the subsequent FIR, filing of the charge-sheet, framing of charges and allegations of intimidation did not establish misuse of liberty or breach of bail conditions

The second application for cancellation of bail was accordingly dismissed, and the earlier bail order was left undisturbed