Involvement in another serious offence while on bail justifies cancellation of bail.

The appellant was granted bail on 26 March 2024 in Crime No. 62 of 2024, registered under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 379 IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that he and others waylaid the complainant, humiliated him on the basis of caste, and stole a relative’s mobile phone.

While on bail, the appellant was implicated in Crime No. 484 of 2025 under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.

The Special Court cancelled his bail on 22 July 2026.

In appeal under Section 14A(ii) of the SC/ST Act, the appellant submitted that the detention order had since been revoked and that he had obtained bail in the later case.

Whether the Special Court was justified in cancelling the appellant’s bail on the ground that he had allegedly misused his liberty by becoming involved in a subsequent criminal case.

Whether the later revocation of the preventive detention order and grant of bail in the subsequent case warranted setting aside the bail-cancellation order or otherwise affected the appellant’s ability to seek bail.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(ii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court treated the appellant’s involvement in a subsequent criminal case while on bail as misuse of his liberty and found no infirmity in cancelling bail on that basis.

The Court cited no precedent or further statutory test for bail cancellation; it held only that the changed circumstances could be raised in a fresh bail application for consideration on merits.

The Court noted that the bail cancellation was based principally on the appellant’s involvement in Crime No. 484 of 2025, registered for an offence under Section 103(1) BNS.

It held that this involvement while the appellant was on bail amounted to misuse of liberty and provided no basis to interfere with the cancellation order.

However, because the preventive detention order had been revoked and the appellant had obtained bail in the later case, the Court permitted him to seek bail afresh; it did not treat those subsequent developments as requiring restoration of the earlier bail.

It observed that the appellant could move a fresh bail application before the Sessions Judge, to be considered on its merits.