Bail cannot be cancelled without notice and hearing, absent genuine urgency.

The petitioner had been granted bail pursuant to the High Court’s order dated 31 July 2023 in BLAPL No.7903 of 2023, subject to conditions including that he would not commit any offence while on bail, attend the trial, and not leave the trial-court jurisdiction without permission; breach of the conditions could result in cancellation of bail.

He was released on 5 August 2023 and regularly attended the proceedings.

The prosecution alleged that, while on bail, the petitioner was involved in Tigiria P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 concerning transportation of cattle and offences allegedly committed during interception by the police.

On 2 May 2026, the prosecution applied under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking cancellation of his bail. The Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh, allowed the application on the same day without issuing notice to or hearing the petitioner and cancelled his bail.

The petitioner contended that the alleged subsequent case had already been considered by the High Court while granting him bail in BLAPL No.2737 of 2026 by order dated 29 April 2026. The State argued that the petitioner’s involvement in a similar offence constituted breach of the condition that he should not commit any offence while on bail.

1. Whether a subsisting bail order can be cancelled without notice to the accused and without affording him an opportunity of being heard?

2. Whether the same subsequent criminal case, already considered by the High Court while granting bail in that case, can independently justify cancellation of the earlier bail in the absence of any additional supervening circumstance?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and considered the prosecution’s application under Section 483(3) of the BNSS concerning cancellation of bail.

It applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, holding that cancellation of bail, which affects personal liberty, ordinarily requires prior notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing to the accused.

A reservation permitting the trial court to cancel bail without further reference to the High Court only dispenses with the need for obtaining further permission from the High Court; it does not authorise unilateral cancellation without hearing the accused.

The Court further applied the principle that cancellation of bail must be founded on a legally sustainable supervening circumstance, such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or abscondence; the same material already considered while granting bail cannot ordinarily be re-used as an independent ground for cancellation.

The trial court’s cancellation order was procedurally defective because the prosecution’s application was filed and allowed on the same day, without notice to the petitioner or an opportunity to submit an objection, despite the serious consequence of withdrawing his personal liberty.

The High Court also found that Tigiria P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 had already been placed before and considered by the High Court when it granted the petitioner bail in BLAPL No.2737 of 2026 on 29 April 2026.

Therefore, the trial court could not treat that very case, without more, as a fresh supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of the earlier bail.

The impugned order did not identify any post-bail misuse of liberty, witness intimidation, interference with evidence, or abscondence.

Moreover, the prosecution’s application did not set out the particulars of the subsequent case, although the trial court relied on it in cancelling bail, further undermining fairness and the petitioner’s opportunity to meet the case against him.

Accordingly, the order dated 2 May 2026 cancelling the petitioner’s bail was set aside.

The prosecution’s cancellation application was restored for fresh consideration by the trial court after due notice, opportunity to file an objection, and hearing, preferably within two weeks from production of the judgment.

Pending such consideration, the petitioner was directed to be released on the same bail bond and conditions, subject to furnishing a fresh undertaking not to commit any offence while on bail and to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations and disposed of the connected petitions accordingly.