Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, in a detailed judgment delivered on July 31, 2025, rejected the State’s application for cancellation of bail granted to an accused convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that “bail once granted ought not to be cancelled in the absence of strong, cogent and overwhelming ground.” It found that mere registration of subsequent FIRs, without conclusive proof of violation of bail conditions, did not justify depriving the respondent of his liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Facts
The respondent was convicted for the murder of one Mari Raman Devendra and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge in 2019. Pending the appeal filed in the Bombay High Court, he was released on bail on August 7, 2019, subject to various stringent conditions, including regular attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and good conduct.
The State filed the present application in 2024 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondent had violated the bail conditions. The State cited three FIRs registered against him after his release: C.R. No. 363/2023 (assault), C.R. No. 120/2024 (threat and assault on the deceased’s brother), and C.R. No. 960/2024 (threatening public and police near Cooper Hospital).
In opposition, the respondent argued that the FIRs were either retaliatory or politically motivated and that he remained compliant with bail conditions, regularly attending Court and not absconding.
Issues
- Whether registration of new FIRs against the respondent post-bail constitutes a violation of bail conditions.
- Whether the respondent’s conduct amounted to attempts to threaten or influence complainants or witnesses in the pending criminal appeal.
- Whether grounds existed that satisfied the legal threshold for cancellation of bail already granted.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The State contended that the respondent had engaged in repeated antisocial activities, including threats to witnesses, especially Dinesh Kannaswami—the brother of the deceased. It was argued that such conduct violated specific bail conditions, particularly clauses (a) and (d) of the August 7, 2019 bail order. The State maintained that the respondent’s liberty posed a risk to the fairness of the ongoing criminal appeal and societal safety.
It was further pointed out that externment proceedings had earlier been initiated against the respondent by the Mumbai Police, and that he had shown a pattern of habitual conduct detrimental to law and order.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the complaints were either fabricated or emerged from political or business rivalries. He pointed out that no charges had yet been framed in the fresh FIRs and submitted medical evidence to support his version that he had also been assaulted. He emphasized that he had complied with all bail conditions, including appearances before the Sessions Court every two months.
The respondent also noted that the externment order against him had already been quashed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on March 4, 2025, who had reviewed all the criminal complaints cited in the present application.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled principles on cancellation of bail, distinguishing it from the grant of bail. The Court relied on a series of Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat (1984) – Strong and cogent reasons are necessary for bail cancellation.
- Mahboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2004) – Grounds such as threats to witnesses or new similar offences may justify cancellation, but are not exhaustive.
- Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021) – Post-bail supervening circumstances may be relevant for cancellation if they affect fair trial.
- Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) – Misuse of bail liberty, threats, or tampering with evidence are valid but must be backed by sufficient material.
The Court held that the standard for cancelling bail after conviction and during the pendency of appeal is stricter than during trial, requiring “strong, cogent and overwhelming grounds.”
Precedent Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of case law:
- In Puran v. Rambilas (2001) and Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat (2008), the distinction was drawn between setting aside a perverse bail order and cancelling it due to misconduct.
- In Gurcharan Singh v. State (1978), the Supreme Court clarified that cancellation can be sought either before the Sessions Court or High Court, but must be justified on new grounds post-bail.
- In Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. (2013), the Court warned against cancellation without concrete post-bail developments.
These decisions guided the High Court to cautiously evaluate post-bail conduct and balance individual liberty with societal interest.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that for four years after being granted bail, there were no complaints against the respondent. The FIRs cited by the State arose only after June 2023. Two of the three FIRs were still under investigation, and no charges had been framed. The Court observed that from a mere reading of the FIRs, it could not conclusively determine the respondent’s guilt or violation of bail terms.
The Court accepted the respondent’s contention that the incidents could have been spontaneous and possibly provoked. It held that “from a careful analysis of the material on record…those are insufficient to hold that there has been any deliberate attempt…to pressurize either the complainant or the witnesses.”
The Court found no evidence of similar offences or attempts to tamper with the trial or appeal. It emphasized that the principle “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” must be respected unless strong circumstances demand otherwise.
Conclusion
The Court held that:
“Strong, cogent and overwhelming grounds are not present in this case justifying cancellation of the bail earlier granted to the respondent.”
Accordingly, the application filed by the State under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was dismissed. However, the State was granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies in the three FIRs as per law.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the high threshold for cancelling bail post-conviction and during the pendency of appeal. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between unproven allegations and established misconduct. Courts must remain cautious to protect personal liberty, especially in politically or personally motivated cases, unless threats to justice are clearly established.
Cases Referred and Their Application
- Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat (1984) 1 SCC 284
Cited to emphasize that overwhelming circumstances are necessary for bail cancellation. - Mahboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 2 SCC 362
Clarified the grounds for bail cancellation—threats, tampering, or repeat offences. - Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021) 15 SCC 518
Stressed on post-bail conduct as a basis for cancellation. - Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 4 SCC 222
Restated the above principles, holding that bail cannot be cancelled without substantial cause. - Gurcharan Singh v. State (1978) 1 SCC 118 and Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338
Distinguished between illegal/perverse grant of bail and cancellation due to conduct.
FAQs
1. Can FIRs registered after bail justify its cancellation?
Not necessarily. Unless they show deliberate violations like threats to witnesses or repeat offences similar to the original charge, bail cannot be cancelled solely on their basis.
2. What is the legal standard for cancelling bail after conviction?
The standard is stricter than during trial. Courts require strong, cogent, and overwhelming reasons, especially where appeal is pending and liberty is already granted.
3. Did the Court find that the accused was trying to influence witnesses?
No. The Court found no material suggesting that the respondent contacted or threatened any witnesses connected with the murder case pending appeal.