CAM Comment: In this article, we discuss the concept of cancellation of bail in the backdrop of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court that trial courts are empowered to cancel bail granted by higher courts if bail conditions are violated.
Do trial courts have the power to cancel bail granted by a higher court? In a recent judgment in State of Karnataka v. Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni[1] (“Vinay Kulkarni”), the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the authority of trial courts to act decisively even when bail has been granted by a superior court, holding that trial courts can cancel bail granted by a superior court if the accused violates their bail conditions.
The power to cancel bail to prevents the misuse of liberty by the accused. Criminal courts can revoke bail on grounds of misconduct,[2] non-compliance of bail conditions,[3] obtaining bail through misrepresentation or fraud,[4] attempts to influence witnesses,[5] tampering with evidence,[6] or committing further offenses.[7]
Provisions concerning the grant and cancellation of bail under the BNSS
The provisions governing bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), (which mirrors the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), include:
- Section 478[8] of the BNSS, applicable to bailable offences, empowers the officer-in-charge of a police station or a Court (usually the jurisdictional magistrate) to release an accused upon furnishing a bail or personal bond. A fresh bail application may be necessitated after the initial grant if circumstances change or new evidence is discovered. In such cases, the Court can deny bail later if a previous bail condition is violated.
- Section 480[9] of the BNSS allows a Court (other than a Session Court or a High Court) to grant bail for non-bailable offences except when the offence carries life imprisonment or death penalty or the accused has prior convictions for serious offences. Provisional exceptions include mandatory consideration for bail for women, children, sick or infirm individuals, and cases involving special circumstances.
- Section 483 of BNSS allows a High Court or a Sessions Court to grant bail to an accused. Section 483(3) provides the power to cancel previously granted bail and order the arrest of the accused. While a plain reading of Section 483 seems to restrict the power to cancel bail to the High Court or the Sessions Court, Vinay Kulkarni clarified that trial courts can also revoke bail.
Cancellation of Bail: Through the Judicial Lens
The grounds for bail cancellation have evolved over a series of judgments. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)[10] (“Gurcharan Singh”), the Supreme Court clarified that bail can be cancelled based on factors such as (i) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or (ii) tampering with prosecution evidence which affects fair trial, while also observing that granting or cancelling the bail does not have an inexorable formula and depends on individual case facts and circumstances.
In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana,[11] the Supreme Court expanded the principles in Gurcharan Singh and held that bail can be cancelled when the accused has (a) interfered or attempted to interfere with the due course of justice; (b) evaded or attempted to evade the due course of justice or absconded from the proceedings; or (c) abused any concession granted. It also warned against bail cancellation in a mechanical manner,emphasisingthatcourts must first check for new circumstances that make it unfair or problematic to let the accused remain free on bail during their trial.[12] These principles were later affirmed in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra.[13]
Expanding the scope for bail cancellation, the Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem,[14] held that bail can be cancelled due to “serious allegations” against the accused – double murder in this case – even without misuse of the bail granted. Although the Supreme Court did not specify what amounts to “serious allegations”, it suggested factors for a court to consider while granting bail in a “serious criminal offence”, such as (a) the nature of accusations against the accused; (b) the manner in which the crime was allegedly committed; (c) the gravity of the offence; (d) the probability of the accused tampering with evidence; and (e) the possibility of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the court.
Can trial courts cancel bail granted by superior courts?
In Vinay Kulkarni, the Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative. The Respondent, accused of murder and granted bail by the Supreme Court on strict conditions, was alleged to have influenced witnesses and tampered with evidence while on bail, prompting the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) to seek cancellation of bail. The trial court rejected CBI’s application for the bail cancellation citing lack of jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted by the Supreme Court.
On a challenge of the trial court’s decision, the Supreme Court negated the ruling, observing that even if bail was granted by a constitutional court, the trial court could cancel the bail if it was found that the accused violated bail conditions. The Court relied on the observation in Gurcharan Singh,that “a court of session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to the bail by the High Court”.
Section 437(5) of the CrPC empowers Courts (other than a Sessions or High Court) to cancel bail granted under Section 437. In contrast, Section 439 confers broader powers to a High Court or the Sessions Court to cancel “any bail granted under Chapter XXXIII of the CrPC”, including bail granted by Trial Courts under Section 437 and bail granted by themselves. This expansive provision ensures that judicial oversight is maintained when the accused violates bail conditions.
This distinction was recognised in Unknown v. State of Haryana,[15] where the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that while a Magistrate’s power is restricted under Section 437(5), the High Court and Sessions Court can cancel bail under Section 439 across a wider spectrum of cases. However, an exception was made recognising a Magistrate’s power to cancel bail granted by superior courts if bail conditions are violated. Notably, the High Court of Kerala in Preetha Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala[16]alsoupheld the Sessions Court and Magistrate’s power to cancel bail granted by the High Court upon the violation of bail conditions.
Concluding Remarks
Vinay Kulkarni reaffirms that the trial court has the power to cancel bail in supervening circumstances when the accused violates bail conditions, regardless of which court originally granted it. This judgment gains relevance at a time of impending need for trial courts to act more decisively, especially in bail matters (for grant and cancellation) without reference to higher courts. As per the National Judicial Data Grid[17], at least 128,458 bail applications are pending across the High Courts and several thousand before the Supreme Court lending credence to the observation that “hesitation” to act decisively would render the district courts “toothless and dysfunctional”.[18] In this context, the Vinay Kulkarni judgment signals a much-needed reaffirmation of the powers of the trial court in bail matters.
For further information, please contact:
Srinivas Chatti, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
srinivas.chatti@cyrilshroff.com
[1] Order dated June 6, 2025 in SLP (Criminal) No 7865/2025.
[2] Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 4 SCC 222.
[3] Devananda Gupta v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 9092.
[4] Mohd. Shahnawaz Hussain vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Utt 2627.
[5] Supra at 3.
[6] Kanwar Singh Meena vs State of Rajasthan and Anr, 2012 (12) SCC 180.
[7] Aslam Babalal Desai vs State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272.
[8] Section 436 of CrPC
[9] Section 437 of CrPC
[10] AIR 1978 SC 179
[11] (1995) 1 SCC 349
[12] Id (at para no. 4)
[13] (2022) 9 SCC 321
[14] (2024) 10 SCC 768.
[15] Order dated May 17, 2024 passed in CRM-M-9029 of 2023
[16] Order dated March 3, 2025 passed in CRL.MC NO. 5631 of 2022
[17] HC NJDG – National Judicial Data Grid
[18] “Toothless and dysfunctional.” CJI’s warning for Indian courts
