Cancellation of Bail.jpg

Cancellation of Bail

The Court which grants bail, can also withdraw the concession of bail, either suo moto, i.e. own its own, or on the Application from the Police/ Complainant/ any other aggrieved person. However, the Courts exercise their power of cancellation of bail with care and circumspection. Routinely, the Courts refuse to cancel bail, as it jeopardizes the personal liberty of the person. The Courts cancel bails only when they find on record a very cogent and overwhelming circumstances prevailing against the accused. 

The following situations as supervening factors that may justify the cancellation of the bail:  

  1. Interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice;
  2. Evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice;
  3. Abuse of the concession granted to the accused;
  4. Possibility of the accused absconding;
  5. Likelihood of/ actual misuse of bail;
  6. Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses;
  7. Other supervening circumstances, which have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by being on bail.

Related Provision of laws

The S-439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, deals with the issue of cancellation of bail, which reads as under:

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- S-439(2)-A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.

When bail can be cancelled

  • Bail granted can be cancelled on the ground which has arisen after the bail was granted.:-It is generally presumed that at the time of hearing of the bail application, the prosecution has raised all possible grounds which could go against the accused in the matter of bail and, therefore, when once bail has been granted to the accused, the prosecution cannot have the bail cancelled on some circumstances which may have existed before the grant of bail.
  •  Suppression of material facts and conversion of offence:-If in his bail application, accused does not disclose his involvement in other criminal cases, and/ or sections are altered/ added in the FIR after grant of bail/ anticipatory bail by the Courts.  
  • If investigating agency is able to demonstrate that accused persons have attempted to influence the witnesses or otherwise tried to thwart the course of justice in any manner.

Ground of cancellation of bail and grounds of rejection of bail are two different things

The ground of cancellation of bail and grounds of rejection of bail are two different circumstances and hence the approach of the Court should also be different. At the time of hearing the bail application, the Court looks at the possibilities of the violation of bail conditions and the Court has to be more open and flexible, whereas while hearing the cancellation application, the Court has to be more rigid and it has to examine not only the possibility of violations but whether the actual violation has taken place or not. The Court should be more rigid here and actual proof of violation is required.

Various decisions vest courts with the power and discretion to cancel bail even when there are no supervening circumstances. Those principles may be illustratively stated as below:

  1. Where the court granting bail ignores relevant material and takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature
  2. Where the court granting bail overlooks the position of the accused qua the victim especially if the accused is in some position of authority such as a policeman and there is prima facie, a misuse of position and power, including over the victim
  3. Where the court granting bail ignores the past criminal record and conduct of the accused while granting bail;
  4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds;
  5. Where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice
  6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place, given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified;
  7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.

Triple Test doctrine Of Bail:

  • Triple test doctrine: An accused can be granted bail if it can be established that he or she is not a flight risk, will not influence witnesses and will not tamper with the evidence.

 Judgments- Cancellation Of Bail

  • Amarmani Tripathi [State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi] (2005) 8 SCC 21.
  • Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Versus State Of Gujarat & Another, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1134-1135 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 01.09.2015, Bench: A.K. Sikri & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, (2016) 1 SCC 152- Supreme Court Of India: Cancellation Of Bail- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail.
  • Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Versus State of Gujarat, Appeal (Crl.) 739 of 2008, Date Of Judgment: 28/04/2008 Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam & Aftab Alam, JJ, (2008) 5 SCC 66,  Supreme Court Of India- Cancellation Of Bail- Issue, that seriousness of the offences, and the sentences to be imposed were not kept in view. Also, Irrelevant factors were taken into consideration for granting bail.- Held, the order of granting bail to the appellant was certainly vulnerable and cancellation of the bail by the High Court was justified and therefore could not be interfered with.
  • Guria, Swayam Sevi Sansthan Versus State Of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1373 2009,  Date Of Judgment: 31.07.2009, S.B. Sinha, & Cyriac Joseph, JJ, Supreme Court OF India- Cancellation Of Bail.
  • Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 2335/2014 Judgment Dated- 18/12/2014), Bench- Dipak Misra & Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ., Citations- 2014(14) JT 369= 2014(14) SCALE 224= 2014(10) SLT 605- Cancellation Of Bail.
  • Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav-SC-12.03.2004-_______- (2004) 7 SCC 528 =2004 CriLJ 1796= AIR 2004 SC 1866= 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Pappu- State of Maharashtra Vs. PappuCriminal Appeal No. 944/2014, Judgment Dated- 24/04/2014, Bench- P. Sathasivam, C.J., Ranjan Gogoi, J & N.V. Ramana, J, Citations- 2014(11) SCC 244= 2014(5) SCALE 584= 2014(4) Supreme 636= 2014(4) SLT 521= 2014(3) SCC(Cr) 350- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
  • Pooja Bhatia v. Vishnu Narain ShivpuriCriminal Appeal No. 585/2014 Judgment Dated- 10/03/2014, Bench-P. Sathasivam, C.J. & Ranjan Gogoi, J, Citations- 2014(3) SCALE 612: 2014(2) Supreme 465: 2014(3) SLT 304: 2014(2) Crimes 50(SC): 2014(3) JCC 1555: 2014(3) SCR 661: 2014(13) SCC 492- Cancellation Of Bail
  • Prahalad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT of Delhi, AIR 2001 SC 1444=2001(4) SCC 280.
  • Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtrahtra, Crl. Appeal Nos. 2446-2447/2014, Judgment Dated-19/11/2014, Bench-V. Gopala Gowda & R. Banumathi, JJ, Citations- 2015(2) SCC 313: 2014(13) JT 131: 2014(13) SCALE 93: 2014(8) Supreme 65: 2014(10) SLT 129: 2014(4) Crimes 269(SC)- Cancellation Of Bail.
  • State Versus. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961- (1978) 2 SCC 411- Cancellation Of Bail.
  • Sita Ram Vs. Balbir (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 489- Cancellation Of Bail.
  • X (Changed name) Versus State & Anr., CRL.M.C.2120/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.1567/2016, Judgment Dated: 04.03.2016, Bench: S.P.GARG, J, DelHC- Sexual harassment Case- Held, “16. Petitioner’s counsel has failed to impress as to for what purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. While granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, safeguarding the petitioner’s interest and that of the Investigating Agency, stringent conditions have already been imposed upon the accused. This Court finds no manifest error in the matter of grant of bail by the Trial Court. “- Cancellation Of Bail.
  • Pillappan Alias Ravikumar Vs State- 18.04.2018- Madras High Court-
  • Dolat Ram Vs State Of Haryana- 1995 SCC (1) 349 –
  • Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr. | 2000 SCC Online Del 119
  • Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta vs. State of Gujarat | (2019)14SCC522 –
  • Myakala Dharmarajam and Ors. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. – AIR 2020 SC 317 –
  • Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement | 265 (2019) DLT 1-
  • Chidambaram v. CBI | Criminal Appeal No. 1603/2019
  • State of Bihar & Anr. v. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai- (2017) 13 SCC 751-
  • Sachindra Priyadarshi v. State (NCT) of Delhi- MANU/DE/0885/2020-
  • National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali- AIR 2019 SC 1734
  • Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 1475
  • State v. Sanjeev Kumar Chawla | Crl. M.C. No. 1468/2020 (Delhi HC)
  • Abbas Ahmad Choudhary v. State of Assam | Crl. Appeal No. 951 of 2004
  • X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. | (2018) 16 SCC 511
  • Ram Chandra Meena vs. High Court of Rajasthan and Ors. MANU/SC/0966/2018
  • Prakash Kadam and Ors. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.- (2011) 6 SCC 189-
  • Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2012) 12 SCC 180
  • State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi.

Kindly CLICK HERE, call our helpline at (+91) 98-712-712-05, or e-mail us at if you wish to talk to a lawyer or are facing any other Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empaneled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

Need A Lawyer? We Can Get You One.

Fill This Form If You Wish To Hire A Lawyer
Know More

Find A Lawyer

Fill This Form If You Wish To Retain A Lawyer
Know More

Retain A Lawyer

Like us? Leave us a review.