The cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of interference with justice; mere subsequent offences without impact on trial do not suffice.

1. This application under section 483(3) of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.1 vide order dated 02/07/2025 passed in MCRC no. 23959/2025 in connection with Crime no. 273/2025 registered at Police Station - Tarana District Ujjain.

2. Considered.

3. Respondent Jitendra was extended the benefit of bail for offence punishable under sections 191(2), 296, 115(2), 351(3), 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Crime no. 273/2025 at Police Station Tarana District - Ujjain subject to the condition that he shall abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C

4. Learned counsel for the applicant referring to the FIR at Crime no.

150/2025 registered at Police Station Jharda District Ujjain, contends that the respondent Jitendra has again committed offence punishable under sections 296, Signature Not Verified

115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and has violated the condition for grant of bail, therefore, earlier bail granted to the respondent be cancelled.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is no allegation that the subsequent offence has caused any interference in the trial. Learned counsel further relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhuri Bai Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1779 contends that mere registration of subsequent FIR or filing of final report is not sufficient to cancel the bail already granted, unless cogent grounds are made out and there is apparent possibility of interference with the trial. The final report has been submitted on completion of investigation in Crime No. 150/2025 registered at Police Station - Jharda District Ujjain for offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the respondent has been extended the benefit of bail in subsequent offence. The petition is meritless.

6. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

7. The Supreme Court in case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, laid down the factors relevant for cancellation of bail already granted, as under-

“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”

Signature Not Verified

8. These principles have been reiterated in case of CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 296, as under-

“23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to eva