Bail is liable for cancellation if the accused misuses liberty by threatening the prosecutrix.

The applicant (victim) filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking the cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No. 2 (Vishal Sen) by the Trial Court on January 5, 2023.

The respondent was facing trial for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of the IPC and Sections 5L, 6 of the POCSO Act.

The original bail order carried conditions prohibiting the accused from influencing or threatening witnesses.

On August 3, 2024, a second FIR (Crime No. 351/2024) was registered against the respondent for allegedly entering the prosecutrix's house and threatening her to withdraw the case, leading to charges under Sections 333, 232, and 351(2) of the BNS.

1. Whether the respondent/accused violated the terms and conditions of the bail order dated January 5, 2023, by engaging in subsequent criminal conduct and threatening the prosecutrix.

2. Whether the misuse of liberty and commission of a subsequent offence warrant the cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the power to cancel bail.

Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995), which established that while cancellation requires "cogent and overwhelming circumstances," it is necessary if liberty is misused.

State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005), asserting that bail is cancellable if an accused interferes with the course of justice or tampers with witnesses.

Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) regarding the cancellation of bail for repeat criminal conduct, and X v. State of Telangana (2018), which held that bail is not a license to commit further offences.

The Court observed that the respondent failed to abide by the specific conditions (Conditions No. 3 and 7) of his original bail order.

The registration of Crime No. 351/2024 served as evidence that the respondent had entered the prosecutrix's home to threaten her, thereby directly interfering with the administration of justice.

The Court reasoned that although the power to cancel bail must be exercised cautiously, the respondent's conduct demonstrated a clear misuse of the concession granted to him.

By engaging in criminal activity while on bail, the respondent's continued liberty would defeat the ends of justice and erode the sanctity of judicial orders.

The respondent was directed to surrender within one week, failing which the Trial Court was ordered to take him into custody.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the cancellation proceedings and should not influence the main trial.