Bail Cannot Be Mechanically Cancelled Solely on Account of Breach of Condition or Subsequent Offence

The petitioner was originally charged under Sections 8(c), 20(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act and was granted regular bail by the Sessions Court on March 30, 2024, with a condition not to involve himself in any criminal activity

Subsequently, two more FIRs under the NDPS Act were registered against him

Consequently, the Investigating Officer filed an application under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, seeking cancellation of bail due to breach of conditions.

The 6th Additional Sessions Court, Vadodara, cancelled the petitioner’s bail on May 12, 2026, on the grounds of these subsequent offences

The petitioner challenged this cancellation, noting that the subsequent offences involved small quantities of contraband and that he had already been granted bail in those cases

1. Whether the mere registration of subsequent FIRs and the technical breach of bail conditions mandate the automatic or mechanical cancellation of bail.

2. Whether the Sessions Court’s order of cancellation was legally sustainable under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439(2) of the CrPC), regarding the power to cancel bail

The court relied on the settled principle of law that bail, once granted, should not be cancelled mechanically or solely on the ground of a breach of a condition unless the breach is of such a nature that it warrants depriving the person of their liberty.

Precedents cited for these principles included Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1994), Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026), and Godson v. State of Kerala

The High Court examined the reasoning of the Sessions Court, which had cancelled bail primarily based on the registration of subsequent offences as a breach of the "no criminal activity" condition

The Court observed that while conditions were indeed breached, the petitioner had already been granted bail by competent courts in the subsequent cases

The High Court reasoned that under settled law, the cancellation of liberty is a serious matter and cannot be done "mechanically" just because new FIRs were filed

The Court found that the Sessions Court failed to consider that the subsequent offences involved small quantities and that the necessity of custodial detention in the original case was not sufficiently established to justify the revocation of the initial bail order

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated May 12, 2026, passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Court, Vadodara, and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release from custody, provided he complies with the original bail conditions imposed on March 30, 2024