Threatening a prosecution witness in breach of bail conditions justifies cancellation of bail.

The appellant had been granted anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 132, 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

After the charge sheet was filed, CW9, a prosecution witness, complained that the appellant had assaulted and threatened him not to testify; a separate case was registered against the appellant.

The Special Judge cancelled the appellant’s bail, finding a violation of the condition prohibiting threats to prosecution witnesses.

The appellant appealed under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

He argued, among other things, that registration of a subsequent case alone did not justify cancellation and that the allegation was false; the State and complainant opposed the appeal.

1. Whether the alleged assault and threat against CW9 constituted a sufficient supervening circumstance and violation of bail conditions to justify cancellation of the appellant’s bail.

2. Whether the Special Judge’s order cancelling bail warranted appellate interference.

Under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act, an appeal lies against the impugned order; the appellant invoked this provision to challenge cancellation of bail.

The Special Judge had exercised power under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to cancel bail.

Applying Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Court reiterated that bail already granted should not be cancelled mechanically: cogent and overwhelming circumstances are required, including interference or attempted interference with the administration of justice or abuse of the bail concession.

The Court distinguished Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Khajim @ Khajimulla Khan v. State of Karnataka and Abdul Basit @ Raju v. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhar, finding their factual contexts inapplicable.

The relevant bail condition prohibited the appellant from threatening or tampering with the complainant, family members or prosecution witnesses.

The Court distinguished mere registration of another case from a subsequent allegation directly connected to the original proceedings.

CW9 was a prosecution witness, and the complaint in Crime No. 111/2026 alleged that the appellant assaulted and threatened him to prevent him from testifying.

The Court considered this allegation, together with the express bail condition against threatening witnesses, sufficient prima facie material of interference with the administration of justice and abuse of the bail concession.

It also considered the appellant’s contention that a separate case arising from an incident at Kalkeri supported his claim that CW9’s accusation was false, but rejected that explanation on the material before it.

The Court therefore found no error in the Special Judge’s decision to cancel bail.

It left the appellant at liberty to apply for bail before the trial court after examination of the complainant/victim and material witnesses, particularly CW9.