Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of misuse of liberty or willful violation of bail conditions; mere allegations of threats without supporting material or being named as an accused in a subsequent crime are insufficient to invoke the extraordinary power of cancellation.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to cancel the bail granted to the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in Crl.P.No.12498 of 2025 dated 26.09.2025.

2. Heard Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner No.1 – State as well as Smt. Rachna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner NO.2/de facto complainant and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that after obtaining anticipatory bail, the accused had allegedly contacted and threatened the complainant with dire consequences to withdraw the case, as such, another case in Crime No.262 of 2025 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 232 of BNS and Section 67-D of the IT Act, and that respondent No.3 was also involved in another criminal case. Therefore, he argued that the conduct of the accused in intimidating and influencing the complainant clearly violated the conditions of bail. Hence, he prayed the Court to cancel the bail granted to the respondents by allowing this Criminal Petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2/de facto complainant submitted that she was the victim in the crime and that the offences alleged were grave and directly affected her safety and dignity. She further submitted that the State had filed the Criminal Petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused and that the outcome of the said petition would have a direct bearing on her rights and protection. She further submitted that under Section 439(1A) Cr.P.C., the victim was entitled to be heard in proceedings relating to bail and cancellation of bail and, therefore, her presence was necessary for effective adjudication of the matter. Therefore, she prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations were false and motivated, and that the respondents had fully cooperated with the investigation by complying with the notice issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the statement of the de facto complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein allegations under Sections 376-D and 307 IPC were introduced, was a clear improvement over her earlier version and was made only to implicate the respondents in graver offences after the charge sheet had already been filed. He contended that though a subsequent case in Crime No.262 of 2025 was registered alleging threats, the respondents were not arrayed as accused therein and no specific allegations were made against them, and therefore the claim of violation of bail conditions was baseless. He further contended that the present case was lodged due to matrimonial disputes between the families and as a counterblast to another criminal case pending against the complainant’s brother and others, and thus there were no grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the principal contention of the petitioners is that after obtaining anticipatory bail, the respondents/accused had threatened and attempted to intimidate the de facto complainant with a view to compel her to withdraw the case, and that such conduct amounts to violation of the conditions of bail warranting cancellation. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a subsequent crime in Crime No.262 of 2025 was registered alleging commission of certain offences.

7. On the other hand, t