Pregnant Complainant’s Bid to Cancel 5 Accused’s Bail Fails as P&H HC Cites No External Injuries, CCTV of Husband’s Aggressive Conduct

In brief

The question

Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondents Nos. 2–6 should be cancelled under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The court held

The Court held that no ground for cancellation of the respondents’ anticipatory bail was established.

It also directed

It dismissed the petition and directed that any pending applications stand disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents Nos. 2–6 in an FIR arising from an alleged assault on 27 February 2026.

p. 1

The petitioner alleged that she was struck while pregnant and that the assault caused her miscarriage.

pp. 1–3

The Sessions Court granted interim anticipatory bail on 19 June 2026, relying principally on CCTV footage and directing the investigating officer to verify it; the court confirmed bail on 7 July 2026 after the respondents joined the investigation.

pp. 4–8

The petitioner challenged both orders, relying on her medical-legal report and ultrasound findings.

p. 8

02Issues

i.Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondents Nos. 2–6 should be cancelled under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1 · pp. 8–10

ii.Whether the Sessions Court’s bail orders were based on a material misreading of the evidence or otherwise erroneous considerations warranting cancellation.

p. 10

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, identified in the judgment as corresponding to Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

p. 1

The Court stated that bail already granted cannot be cancelled merely because a superior court takes a different view; cancellation requires the impugned order to reflect a complete misreading of the evidence or reliance on completely erroneous considerations.

p. 10

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 15 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482 Section 483 Section 528

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 3 Section 91 Section 115 Section 190 Section 191 Section 296 Section 332 Section 351

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 148 Section 149 Section 315

04Reasoning

The Court considered the medical-legal report, which recorded swelling and pain but no external injury on the forehead or back, and found that the absence of external injury cast doubt on the alleged assault as described.

pp. 9–10

It also relied on the CCTV footage, which showed the petitioner’s husband behaving aggressively, and noted the existence of a cross-case against the petitioner’s party.

p. 10

In light of these circumstances and the Sessions Court’s consideration of the footage, the Court found no basis to conclude that the bail orders involved a complete misreading of the evidence or completely erroneous considerations.

p. 10