Cogent evidence of post-bail misconduct is mandatory for the cancellation of anticipatory bail.

The Petitioner (complainant) filed a petition seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Respondent No. 2 (Chhabi Chand Sahu) on 18.03.2026 in MCRCA No. 335/2026

Respondent No. 2 had been granted bail in connection with Crime No. 14/2026 for an offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Petitioner alleged that following his release, the Respondent threatened the Petitioner and her family, leading to a written complaint filed with the police

The State opposed the petition, arguing there was no jurisdictional error in the original bail order and describing the present application as frivolous

1. Whether the subsequent conduct of the accused, as alleged by the Petitioner, constitutes "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" necessary to justify the cancellation of anticipatory bail

2. Whether the Petitioner provided sufficient material evidence to demonstrate that Respondent No. 2 misused his liberty or interfered with the course of justice

The Court applied the principle that the liberty of an individual is a precious constitutional right that should not be lightly interfered with unless there is material showing the accused's conduct post-grant of bail warrants deprivation of liberty

It relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Kailash Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. (2025), which dictates that bail cancellation requires "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances"

Specifically, bail may be cancelled if the accused misuses liberty by committing similar crimes, interfering with investigation, tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or fleeing the jurisdiction

The Court also upheld the rule that if two views are possible, bail once granted should generally not be cancelled

The Court observed that the Petitioner failed to project any valid reason or provide even prima facie proof that the Respondent was tampering with evidence or obstructing a fair trial

Upon perusing the records, the Court found the pleadings lacked minimum proof of the alleged threats or activities that would hamper the investigation

The Court reasoned that the allegations of threats appeared to be an "afterthought" intended solely to secure the cancellation of bail

Consequently, the Court determined that the case did not meet the high threshold of "overwhelming circumstances" required by the Supreme Court to override the individual's right to liberty

It held that no grounds were made out for review or recall of the original bail order

The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months, provided there are no legal impediments

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the Trial Court for compliance