Bail may be cancelled when it was obtained through a prima facie false plea of alibi.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 15 December 2025 cancelling bail previously granted to him in a case arising from an alleged murder involving bombs and offences under the BNSS and the Explosive Substances Act.

The petitioner relied on an alibi: he claimed that when the incident occurred, he was at Domkal Police Station reporting his mobile phone missing.

He argued that the police-station CCTV footage was unavailable and that the Sessions Court had wrongly disbelieved his alibi.

The State contended that the alibi was suspect, relying on discrepancies concerning the missing-phone report and SIM-card records, as well as statements of injured eyewitnesses, a Magistrate-recorded statement, seizure materials, injury reports and the post-mortem report.

Whether the Sessions Court was justified in cancelling the petitioner’s bail after finding the alibi relied upon in support of bail to be prima facie doubtful.

Whether the alleged non-availability of police-station CCTV footage warranted interference with the cancellation of bail.

The application was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS, challenging an order cancelling bail under Section 483(3) of the BNSS.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors., (2021) 1 SCC 18, concerning the installation of CCTV cameras at police stations.

The Court’s reasoning also proceeded on the case-specific basis that a bail order may be challenged where the prosecution alleges it was obtained by advancing a false alibi, and that serious incriminating material and relevant circumstances may support cancellation.

The Court considered the alibi insufficiently reliable at this stage.

The alleged missing SIM was registered to another person, had reportedly been inactive for about a year before the incident, and was reactivated only later; the Court regarded the claim that it was lost on the date of the crime as implausible.

It also noted that the bail judge had been told the GD-entry copy was unavailable, but had not adjourned the matter to obtain an appropriate report on the alibi.

Although the State remained obliged to comply with the Supreme Court’s CCTV directions, the asserted absence of footage did not assist the petitioner where the alibi was otherwise prima facie untenable.

The Court further relied on the gravity of the alleged murder and the prosecution materials, including injured eyewitness accounts and medical and seizure evidence.

It clarified that the petitioner could raise the alibi and other available points before the trial court, which must not be influenced by the High Court’s observations; the order also did not prevent a subsequent bail application.