Grounds for Cancellation of Bail

Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that mere celebration of bail on social media cannot be a ground for its cancellation unless it involves specific threats or intimidation to the complainant, while refusing to cancel bail in a house trespass case. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of Zafeer Alam v. State NCT Of Delhi and Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Zafeer Alam v. State NCT Of Delhi and Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The complainant, Zafeer Alam, filed a petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused, Manish, by the Sessions Court in Bail Application No. 891/2025. 
• The case pertains to FIR No. 193/2025 registered at Police Station Narela Industrial Area for offences punishable under Sections 436, 457, 380 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The Sessions Court had granted bail to the accused after noting that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed. The accused had been in custody since 13 March 2025. The bail was granted subject to conditions, including that the accused shall not threaten prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence, or indulge in any criminal activity in future. 
• The complainant alleged that the accused violated the bail conditions. It was contended that after his release, the accused and his co-accused created an atmosphere of fear in the colony by issuing threats to the complainant through posting pictures with weapons on social media. It was further alleged that one co-accused, Gaurav, was witnessed in front of the complainant's residence on 12 June 2025. 
• The complainant submitted that the accused continuously intimidated her and her family with knives and other deadly weapons, thereby endangering their safety. It was stated that the accused had a strong motive and personal animosity against the complainant, as a close associate of the accused was killed in an incident wherein the complainant's son and his friends were attacked by the associates of the accused. This background of enmity was cited as a reason for the accused to seek vengeance against the complainant and her family. 
• The complainant further contended that the accused and his henchmen celebrated their release on bail by uploading videos and status messages on social media, flaunting lethal weapons and issuing veiled threats to the complainant in brazen disregard for the rule of law. 
• The State opposed the application, submitting that the complainant neither filed any application before the Sessions Court for cancellation of bail nor made any complaint of threat or criminal intimidation after the grant of bail. Therefore, it was contended that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at an initial stage and cancellation of bail already 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 bail already granted. 
• The Court noted that generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice, evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice, or abuse of concession granted to the accused in any manner. 
• The Court held that the argument that the accused or his associates celebrated their release on bail by uploading videos and status messages on social media platform cannot be the ground for cancellation of bail without there being any specific threat or intimidation extended to the complainant. 
• The Court observed that screenshots posted on social media were placed on record, but it was not visible from the said screenshots as to whether they were posted by the accused with a view to intimidate the complainant. The Court held that the bail of the accused cannot be cancelled merely because one of the co-accused was witnessed in front of the residence of the complainant on 12 June 2025. 
• The Court noted that admittedly, no complaint had been made to the police regarding any threats having been extended by the accused. The Court observed that in the absence of any complaint being made to the police, the allegations of threat were not substantiated. 
• The Court held that there was no material on record to substantiate the allegations of threats extended by the accused. The Court thus found no justified reason for cancellation of bail of the accused. 
• Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail, finding no merit in the same. 

What are the Guidelines for Cancellation of Bail? 

• The power to cancel bail under Section 480(5) and Section 483(3) of the BNSS should be exercised cautiously, as cancellation infringes upon an individual's liberty. 
• Cancellation of bail differs from refusal of bail at the initial stage. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail already granted. 
• The general grounds for cancellation broadly include interference with the due course of administration of justice, evasion of the due course of justice, or abuse of concession granted to the accused. 
• Bail may be cancelled where the accused abuses the freedom granted, obstructs the investigation, or hampers the progress of investigation. 
• Cancellation is warranted where the accused tampers with evidence, interferes with witnesses, or threatens and intimidates prosecution witnesses. 
• The accused's attempt to escape, evade justice, flee the country, or abscond from the Court's jurisdiction constitutes a ground for cancellation. 
• Bail may be cancelled where the accused engages in similar illegal activities or indulges in criminal activities after release on bail. 
• Bail granted without proper consideration or in violation of substantive or procedural law may be cancelled where the order is wholly irrational, unjustified, or perverse. 
• The Court of Session and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to cancel bail under Section 483(3) of the BNSS.

Case Laws 

• In S.S. Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2010): 
  • The Supreme Court held that striking a delicate balance between individual liberty and societal interests is crucial in matters of bail. 
  • It was observed that every criminal offence is viewed as an offence against the society, and therefore bail holds significant importance for society. 
• In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022):  
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that the norm is to grant bail, making rejection an exception. 
• In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and another (2019): 
  • The Supreme Court clarified that if the bail decision is wholly irrational and unjustified, Section 439(2) of the CrPC can be invoked to revoke the granted bail. 
  • It was held that the power for bail cancellation may be exercised based on the merits of the case, misuse of liberty, or other supervening circumstances. 
  • The Supreme Court outlined that supervening factors for bail cancellation include the accused engaging in similar illegal activities, hampering the investigation's progress, or attempting to flee the country. 
• In Rubina Zahir Ansari v. Sharif Altaf Furniturewala (2014): 
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that submitting a bail cancellation petition directly to the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Session would not violate judicial decorum. 
  • It was recognized that the aggrieved party has the right to approach higher courts for cancellation of bail granted by lower courts.