Property Buyer’s Bid to Cancel Accused’s Bail Fails; P&H HC Finds No Material He Could Influence Witnesses

In brief

The question

Whether the order granting regular bail to respondent No. 2 suffered from a serious infirmity warranting cancellation under Section 483(3) of the BNSS.

The court held

The Court held that no sufficient ground had been established to cancel respondent No. 2’s bail.

It also directed

The petition under Section 483(3) of the BNSS was dismissed, leaving the order granting regular bail in force.

01Facts

The petitioner, Jagdish, sought cancellation of respondent No. 2’s regular bail, granted by the Sessions Court on 25 May 2026 in a case arising from an FIR alleging cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and threats in connection with agreements to sell properties.

pp. 1–5 · ¶ 1–4

The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 had failed to complete the property transactions, was involved in other FIRs, and had threatened him and might intimidate prosecution witnesses.

pp. 1–5 · ¶ 1–4

The Sessions Court had granted bail after considering the nature of the allegations, the material filed with the police report, and the fact that the accused had been in custody since 7 February 2026.

p. 5 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the order granting regular bail to respondent No. 2 suffered from a serious infirmity warranting cancellation under Section 483(3) of the BNSS.

pp. 1, 5–8 · ¶ 1, 6–8

ii.Whether the petitioner’s allegations of threats, risk of witness intimidation, and respondent No. 2’s involvement in other FIRs justified cancellation of bail.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 3–4, 6

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, which the Court considered in addressing the request to cancel bail.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

In assessing bail, the Court relied on M. Dharmarajam and Others v. State of Telangana and Another, 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 540, for the factors relevant to bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence, the accused’s position, the risk of absconding or reoffending, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or witnesses; a court should not conduct a meticulous assessment of the evidence at the bail stage.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 7

It also relied on Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar for the principle that bail may be cancelled where an accused misuses liberty, threatens witnesses, tampers with evidence, or otherwise obstructs justice, while emphasizing that cancellation is a serious interference with liberty and should not be ordered lightly.

p. 7 · ¶ 7

Bail may also be cancelled where the granting order has serious infirmities causing a miscarriage of justice, such as ignoring material showing prima facie involvement or relying on irrelevant material.

p. 8 · ¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 18 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Indian Penal Code, 1860 9 provisions

Section 34 Section 201 Section 406 Section 419 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471 Section 506

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316 Section 318 Section 338 Section 336 Section 340 Section 351 Section 3 Section 238

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Sessions Court had considered the relevant material before granting bail.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6

The police report contained no original agreement to sell or forged document, and the Court noted that the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate and that the police report had already been filed.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6

Although the petitioner alleged threats and a risk of witness intimidation, he produced no specific material showing that respondent No. 2 was influential or capable of affecting prosecution witnesses.

p. 6 · ¶ 6

Applying the principle that bail cancellation requires more than disagreement with the original bail decision, the Court found no serious infirmity or demonstrated misuse of liberty warranting cancellation.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 7–8