Post-Bail Intimidation and Threatening of Witnesses Constitute Valid Grounds for Cancellation of Bail

The applicant sought the cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No. 2 (Aakib) on 24.05.2024 in connection with FIR No. 62/2024.

The first FIR involved allegations of a violent attack on the applicant’s daughter.

Following his release, the accused allegedly led a procession on 25.05.2024 near the applicant's house, involving drum beating and religious slogans, during which he threatened the applicant to compromise the case or face dire consequences.

Consequently, a second FIR (No. 253/2024) was lodged against the accused under Sections 195-A and 506 IPC.

The police also independently lodged a third FIR (No. 252/2024) against several individuals for taking out the unauthorized procession.

A charge-sheet has since been filed in the second FIR, and cognizance was taken against the accused.

Whether the conduct of the accused post-release, specifically the alleged intimidation of witnesses and interference with the administration of justice, constitutes sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail.

The court primarily applied the principles governing the cancellation of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The court relied on the precedent set in Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2004), which established that bail can be cancelled if the accused interferes with the course of justice, tampers with evidence, or threatens witnesses.

The court further cited State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995), emphasizing that while bail cancellation is a "harsh order," it is justified by "supervening circumstances" such as the abuse of the concession of liberty which renders a fair trial no longer conducive.

The court observed a distinction between the rejection of bail and its cancellation, noting that Cogent and overwhelming circumstances are required for the latter.

In applying this to the facts, the court found that the accused’s actions immediately following his release—specifically participating in a provocative procession and allegedly issuing threats—directly interfered with the course of justice.

Although the accused was not named in the police’s FIR regarding the procession, the court noted that the applicant’s second FIR specifically alleged that the accused commanded the crowd and threatened him.

The fact that the police investigation corroborated these allegations—resulting in a charge-sheet and judicial cognizance under Section 506 IPC—provided the necessary material satisfy the court that the witnesses were under threat.

The court determined that these post-grant developments were not mere oral allegations but substantial supervening circumstances.

The court held that threatening witnesses and interfering with justice post-release are valid grounds for revocation of liberty.

The accused was directed to surrender before the concerned court within three days, failing which the court directed the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants for his arrest and remand to judicial custody.