Cancellation of bail requires cogent, overwhelming evidence of post-grant misconduct rather than unsubstantiated allegations of witness threatening.

The petitioner (complainant) filed a petition seeking the cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No. 2 (Rana Praveen Gajbhiye) by the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 16.10.2025 in MCRC No. 8366/2025.

Respondent No. 2 had been arrested for offences under Sections 74, 126(2), 79, 308(4), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in connection with Crime No. 72/2025.

The petitioner alleged that post-release, the respondent threatened the complainant on 30.12.2025 to withdraw the case, leading to a written police complaint.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the bail order suffered from no jurisdictional error and the plea was frivolous.

1. Whether the allegations of threats by the accused post-release constitute "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" sufficient to warrant the cancellation of regular bail.

2. Whether the petitioner provided sufficient prima facie evidence to prove the accused misused his liberty or interfered with the administration of justice.

The Court applied the principles governing the cancellation of bail as established by the Supreme Court in Kailash Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. (2025), which dictates that liberty is a precious right and should not be lightly interfered with unless there is prima facie material showing the accused’s conduct post-bail warrants deprivation of liberty.

The Court followed the settled principle that "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances" are necessary for cancellation.

It further identified seven specific grounds for cancellation, including: misuse of liberty for similar crimes, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence/witnesses, threatening witnesses, flight risk, or becoming untraceable.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations of threats or trial obstruction with "minimum proof" or "valid reasons".

It noted that the pleadings lacked evidence to show that the respondent was actively creating obstacles for a fair trial.

The High Court found that the grounds raised by the petitioner appeared to be an "afterthought" intended to revoke the bail rather than a genuine reflection of a "cogent and overwhelming situation".

Since none of the seven established legal benchmarks for bail cancellation (such as fleeing or actual witness tampering) were met, the Court determined there was no reason to recall or review the previous bail order.

The petition (CRMP) was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within one year, provided there are no legal impediments.

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.