Bail cannot be cancelled absent misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances.

The appellant, described as the victim, challenged under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Special Judge’s order granting bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

The prosecution alleged that the respondents entered the complainant’s home, assaulted her husband, used caste-related abuse, threatened the couple, and sought to compel withdrawal of an earlier case.

The appellant argued that the respondents had suppressed their criminal antecedents and that the gravity of the allegations had not been properly assessed.

The respondents submitted that their five antecedent cases, all under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, had been disposed of, and that they had not misused bail.

1. Whether the Special Judge’s grant of bail should be set aside on the ground that the respondents’ criminal antecedents were not properly considered.

2. Whether sufficient grounds existed to cancel bail in the absence of alleged misuse of liberty or any subsequent or supervening circumstance.

Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, provided the basis for the appeal.

The Court applied the principle that cancellation of bail may be warranted where a subsequent or supervening circumstance justifies interference, including misuse of bail, witness intimidation, or breach of bail conditions; absent such circumstances, the Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the trial court’s discretionary order.

The Court found that the Special Judge had expressly considered the respondents’ five criminal antecedents and noted that those cases had been disposed of; therefore, the claim that the antecedents were overlooked was not sustainable.

The Court also noted that the appeal alleged no post-release misuse of liberty, attempt to influence or threaten witnesses, or breach of bail conditions.

In the absence of any subsequent or supervening circumstance, the Court declined to interfere with the bail order.

The Court dismissed the appeal seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, finding no sufficient ground to interfere with the Special Judge’s order.