Bail cannot be cancelled on unverified threat allegations without a proper inquiry.

The petitioner, the de facto complainant, sought cancellation under Section 483(3) of the BNSS of the bail granted to respondent No. 2 by a Coordinate Bench on 12 August 2025.

The bail order prohibited respondent No. 2 from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses and permitted the prosecution to seek cancellation before the trial court if a condition was breached.

The petitioner made representations to police in November and December 2025 alleging threats, but did not seek cancellation before the trial court until 4 August 2026.

The trial court called for a police report; on 27 August 2026, the Police Inspector reported that respondent No. 2 had not threatened the petitioner.

The petitioner was absent that day, and the trial court took the report on record.

The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking cancellation of bail.

Whether the petitioner’s allegations and the material on record justified cancellation of respondent No. 2’s bail for an alleged breach of the condition against threatening prosecution witnesses.

Whether steps should be taken under the Witnesses Protection Scheme, 2018 in response to the petitioner’s representation alleging threats.

Under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, bail may be cancelled where grounds are established, including a breach of bail conditions.

The Court stated that, once bail has been granted, cancellation should be ordered only in special or serious circumstances; where an alleged breach is relied upon, the prosecution may move the trial court for cancellation.

The Court also held that a trial court receiving a witness’s report of threats should take appropriate steps under the Witnesses Protection Scheme, 2018.

The High Court found insufficient basis to cancel bail directly.

The petitioner had delayed seeking cancellation before the trial court, and the police report before that court stated that no threat had been made.

The record also showed that the petitioner had appeared for earlier trial dates without seeking cancellation, and later stated that he was unwilling to testify without giving a reason.

Because the alleged threat had not been established through an adequate enquiry, the Court held that cancellation was not warranted on the material before it.

However, it considered that the trial court should address the threat allegation under the Witnesses Protection Scheme, rather than merely take the police report on record.

It left the trial court at liberty to consider cancellation in accordance with law if the petitioner established a breach of bail conditions, and directed the trial court to take necessary steps under the Witnesses Protection Scheme, 2018 on the petitioner’s 4 August 2026 representation, including protection for the petitioner and other witnesses if the alleged threat was substantiated.