Bail cannot be cancelled mechanically absent cogent proof of liberty misuse or interference with justice.

The applicant had been granted bail on 13.07.2020 in Crime No. 201/2020 registered at Police Station Rau, Indore, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 294, 506, 450, 452 and 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution subsequently alleged that, after his release, the applicant threatened the victim, sent her nude and private photographs and videos, and attempted to damage her reputation.

On the victim’s complaints dated 26.02.2026, 11.03.2026 and 24.03.2026, a fresh Crime No. 201/2026 was registered under Sections 78(i)–(iii), 351(3) and 232(1) of the BNS and Sections 66-E and 67-A of the Information Technology Act.

The Trial Court cancelled the applicant’s earlier bail by order dated 13.05.2026 in M.J.C.R. Nos. 1510/2026 and 1546/2026, principally relying on the alleged misuse of liberty and the subsequent FIR.

The applicant challenged the cancellation under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The State and the victim opposed the application, alleging continuing intimidation and interference with the judicial process.

Whether the applicant’s bail granted on 13.07.2020 could be cancelled merely on the basis of the subsequent FIR and allegations of threats and misuse of liberty?

Whether the material circumstances established interference with the course of justice, tampering with evidence or witnesses, or other grounds sufficient to satisfy the stringent requirements for cancellation of bail?

Whether the Trial Court’s failure to identify any specific violation of the original bail conditions rendered the cancellation order unsustainable?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and applied the settled distinction between rejection of bail and cancellation of bail.

Bail cannot be cancelled mechanically; cancellation requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances showing misuse of liberty, interference with investigation or trial, tampering with evidence, threatening or influencing witnesses, or other conduct obstructing the administration of justice.

Relying on Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272, the Court reiterated that the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) CrPC are illustrative and include similar criminal activity, interference with investigation, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, absconding or evasion of the process of law.

The Court also considered Abhimanue v. State of Kerala, 2025 INSC 1136, and Himanshu Sharma v. State of M.P., 2024 INSC 13, but found them distinguishable on their facts.

The applicant was further directed to comply with Section 480 of the BNSS and the original bail conditions.

The Court held that the subsequent FIR and allegations of threatening conduct could not, by themselves, justify automatic cancellation of bail.

In the original case, the evidence of the prosecutrix had concluded on 16.01.2025, the evidence of her brother had concluded on 27.03.2025, and the victim’s parents had been given up as witnesses; consequently, the possibility of influencing or tampering with the principal witnesses was substantially reduced.

The subsequent Crime No. 201/2026 was based substantially on electronic evidence whose authenticity and evidentiary value remained under investigation, and the applicant had already been granted regular bail in that case on 09.04.2026.

The Court also noted that the victim had not opposed that bail application and that the later complaint dated 31.03.2026 had not yet resulted in registration of an FIR.

Since the Trial Court had not identified any particular condition of the original bail order that had been violated, and since the precedents relied upon by it involved materially different factual circumstances, the cancellation order did not satisfy the stringent legal threshold.

The applicant’s father’s recent bypass surgery and the applicant’s medical circumstances were also considered as relevant humanitarian factors.

The bail granted to the applicant on 13.07.2020 in Crime No. 201/2020 was restored, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount.

The applicant was directed to comply with Section 480 of the BNSS and all original bail conditions, cooperate with the trial, refrain from influencing witnesses or committing a similar offence, and appear before the Trial Court as required.