Breach of settlement alone does not justify cancellation of anticipatory bail absent misuse.

The petitioner, proprietor of Singhal Provision Stores, sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in connection with Crime No. 529/2026 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, for offences under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 60(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by order dated 16 July 2026 in MCRCA No. 1114/2026.

The petitioner contended that he had consented to the grant of bail on the assurance that the parties would comply with a settlement deed dated 8 July 2026, including the return of stock of sugar, but that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had failed to comply with that obligation.

The respondents and the State opposed the cancellation petition, asserting that there was no infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order granting anticipatory bail.

Whether the alleged failure of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to comply with the settlement deed constituted a valid and sufficient ground for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to them.

Whether the record disclosed any supervening circumstance—such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence or witnesses, threats, flight risk, or obstruction of the trial—warranting cancellation of bail.

Whether the order granting anticipatory bail required review, recall, or cancellation in the circumstances of the case.

The Court considered the anticipatory bail granted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to offences under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 60(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It applied the settled principle that bail already granted may be cancelled only on the basis of very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, particularly where the accused misuses liberty, interferes with investigation, tampers with evidence or witnesses, threatens witnesses, engages in similar criminal activity, absconds, or places himself beyond the reach of the investigating agency or surety.

Relying on Kailash Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 861/2025, decided on 20 February 2025, the Court held that individual liberty should not be lightly interfered with and that cancellation requires material showing improper post-bail conduct, such as witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or obstruction of the trial.

It further applied the principle that, once bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled merely because another view is possible, absent legally recognised grounds for cancellation.

The Court found that the petitioner’s allegation concerned non-compliance with the settlement deed, particularly the alleged failure to return the stock of sugar, rather than any misuse of the liberty granted under the anticipatory bail order.

The record contained no prima facie material showing that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had tampered with evidence, threatened or influenced witnesses, obstructed the investigation, adopted dilatory tactics, absconded, or otherwise impaired a fair trial.

The Court also noted that the complainant had been heard when anticipatory bail was originally granted on 16 July 2026, and considered the subsequent ground for cancellation to be an afterthought aimed at securing revocation of the bail.

Since the alleged breach of settlement did not satisfy the stringent threshold for cancellation and no supervening circumstance affecting the administration of justice was established, the Court declined to interfere with the earlier bail order.

The alleged non-compliance with the settlement deed, without proof of misuse of liberty or obstruction of the investigation or trial, was insufficient to justify cancellation.

Accordingly, the prayer for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was refused, and CRMP No. 2281 of 2026 was dismissed.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the concerned trial court for information and compliance.