Cancellation of bail requires cogent supervening circumstances; an unrelated subsequent FIR alone is insufficient.

The petitioner sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to respondent No. 2, Sukh Singh, by the Sessions Judge, Nuh, on 30 April 2026.

The underlying FIR—FIR No. 220 dated 24 November 2025, Police Station Rozka Meo, District Mewat—alleged offences under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(4) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 120-B, 420, 409 and 201 IPC.

The allegation was that the accused induced the complainant to pay approximately ₹73 lakh for purchase of land, received the money through bank accounts and cash, executed certain documents, and thereafter transferred the land to third parties or family members without refunding the amount.

After respondent No. 2 was granted bail, the petitioner alleged that he and his associates threatened and intimidated witness Anil Kumar to prevent him from deposing in another case concerning Nagraj.

The petitioner relied on a subsequent FIR dated 3 May 2026 under the Arms Act and various provisions of the BNS, as well as an alleged assault on Anil and Prahlad on 1 May 2026.

Respondent No. 2 denied committing any overt act and contended that the allegations were false and motivated.

Whether the subsequent allegations of threats, intimidation, violence and registration of another criminal case constituted misuse of the liberty granted to respondent No. 2 so as to justify cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) BNSS, corresponding to Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.?

Whether the alleged intimidation of witness Anil Kumar had a sufficiently proximate nexus with the prosecution arising from the present FIR to establish interference with the investigation or trial?

Whether mere registration or pendency of another criminal case, without cogent evidence connecting it with abuse of bail in the present case, was sufficient ground for cancellation of bail?

The Court applied Section 483(3) of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody.

Cancellation of bail is qualitatively distinct from refusal of bail at the initial stage and must ordinarily be based on subsequent misuse of liberty, interference with the administration of justice, tampering with evidence, intimidation or influencing of witnesses, evasion of the process of law, violation of bail conditions, or patent perversity or legal infirmity in the original bail order.

Relying on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349, the Court reiterated that bail can be cancelled only upon the existence of very cogent, compelling and overwhelming circumstances.

Mere registration or pendency of another criminal case, without material demonstrating abuse of the liberty granted in the present case, is not by itself sufficient for cancellation of bail.

The Court held that the alleged intimidation related to witness Anil Kumar’s deposition in the case concerning Nagraj, which was not connected with the present prosecution.

Respondent No. 2 had also been granted bail in that separate case.

Consequently, the foundational allegation relied upon by the petitioner did not establish a sufficient nexus between the subsequent incident and the present FIR.

Although the subsequent FIR involved allegations of intimidation and violence, the material before the Court did not sufficiently establish that respondent No. 2 had misused the liberty granted in the present case, interfered with the investigation or trial, tampered with evidence, or violated any condition of bail.

Applying the stringent standard in Dolat Ram, the Court concluded that the allegations could be pursued in the appropriate proceedings but did not constitute the cogent and compelling circumstances required for cancellation of bail.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations in either criminal case.

All pending miscellaneous and ancillary applications were disposed of as having become infructuous.