Bombay High Court
Mrs XversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- MEHROZ K PATHAN
Holding
The court held that the allegations and procedural deficiencies do not meet the strong ground required for cancellation of bail, and therefore the bail remains in force.
Summary
The applicant sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused on the ground that the accused allegedly threatened and harassed her, violating the bail condition prohibiting pressurising witnesses or tampering with evidence. The complainant filed a non‑cognizable report and later an FIR, but the FIR omitted the alleged gun‑point threat. The court examined whether these complaints, without any action under Section 155(2) of the CrPC or a private complaint before a magistrate, amounted to a strong ground for bail cancellation under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Citing the decision in Hulaji Gangaram Shete v. Balaji Ramji Shinde (2022) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978), the bench held that cancellation of bail requires concrete evidence of interference with justice and that mere lodging of complaints is insufficient. Consequently, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged violation of bail condition (pressurising witnesses or tampering with evidence) justifies cancellation of bail.
- Whether the complaints and the FIR, which omitted the gun‑point allegation, constitute sufficient ground for cancellation under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether procedural requirements under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exhausted before a court can cancel bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483(3), 74, 78
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 155(2)
Subjects
- bail cancellation
- anticipatory bail
- violation of bail conditions
- evidence tampering
- non‑cognizable offence
- Section 155 CrPC
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- harassment
- gunpoint threat
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3566
1
12.26ACB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL
NO. 12 OF 2026
IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION
NO.1551 OF 2025
MRS. X
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.R.A.Jaiswal
APP for Respondent-State : Mr.R.K.Ingole
…
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 17.01.2026
P.C. :
1] The applicant has filed present application,
seeking cancellation of bail granted by this Court, vide order
dated 27.11.2025 on the ground of violation of condition
no. (C) imposed by this Court wherein this Court has
directed that the applicant shall not pressurize the
prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the
evidence, in any manner.
2] The learned counsel for the applicant-original
complainant submits that after grant of bail by this Court,
2
12.26ACB
the accused has again started harassing the complainant
and pointed gun towards the complainant at Tahsil office. A
complaint was made by the original complainant to the
Bhusawal City Police Station on 29.12.2025. Accordingly,
N.C.No. 290/2025, dated 29.12.2025, is registered with
Bhusawal City Police Station. The contents of the non-
cognizable report were not as per the statement made by
the complainant herein, the complainant-victim thus
submitted an application to the Sub Divisional Police
Officer, Bhusawal [SDPO] on 29.12.2025, pertaining to the
omissions of the Police Authorities while registering the
N.C. and not mentioning the allegations, which are levelled
by the complainant. The SDPO, taking cognizance of the
complaint made by the victim, had directed the concerned
police to register the FIR. Accordingly, FIR bearing
No.305/2025 was registered against the accused on
30.12.2025 for the offence punishable under Section 74 and
78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for stalking and
outraging modesty of the complainant by making obscene
gestures.
3
12.26ACB
3] The victim again was not satisfied by
registration of the FIR and as such made further complaint
to the Superintendent of Police on 06.01.2026 alleging that
the allegation of pointing pistol by the accused was not
incorporated in the non cognizable report as well as in the
FIR, as such, the appropriate action shall be taken.
However, despite of such complaint, no further action is
taken by the Superintendent of Police. The complainant-
victim, having no other remedy, has approached this Court
for cancellation of bail for violation of condition no. (C)
imposed by this Court, vide order dated 27.11.2025.
4] I have gone through the final order passed by
this Court dated 27.11.2025 and also order dated
09.09.2025 passed by this Court, granting interim order
considering the nature of the allegations. Both the orders
dated 09.09.2025 and 27.12.2025 takes into consideration
the discrepancies in the statement made by the victim and
thus granted bail to the accused. It is specifically observed
in the order dated 27.11.2025 that although FIR initially
4
12.26ACB
refers to threats and criminal intimidation, the subsequent
statement of the complainant recorded on 25.07.2025
contains allegations of rape not only against the son of the
applicant but also against the present applicant. Perusal of
the supplementary statement of the victim dated
28.07.2025 speaks about the entirely different story than
that of the First Information Report and even the allegations
of extortion on the threat of making the nude video viral is
against the son of the applicant–Azad Kedarnath Sanap.
5] The present application is filed on the ground of
threats given by the accused to the complainant on the basis
of which NC report and FIR are registered. The fact
remains, even though there was a direct allegation about
threatening the victim on gunpoint by the accused, the
police authorities did not incorporate the said allegations in
the NC report. Even after the complaint was made to the
Deputy Superintendent of Police and after direction of
registration of FIR, the FIR which is registered by the Police
Station, Bhusawal City bearing No.305/2025 also does not
5
12.26ACB
mention about any allegation of threatening the
complainant by means of pistol by the accused. The
complaint dated 06.01.2026 made to the Superintendent of
Police again takes exception to the FIR not incorporating
the allegations of gun point. The continuous complaint
made by the applicant / original victim prima facie shows
the tendency of the present applicant / complainant to
somehow create an evidence to cancel the bail of the
accused granted on merits. The accused was initially
protected vide order dated 09.09.2025. While confirming
the interim protection vide order dated 27.11.2025, no such
complaint of violating the condition or intimidating the
complainant was informed to the Court by the prosecution.
Thus, taking into consideration the nature of allegations, it
appears that the complaints made by the applicant–victim
are made with an intention to somehow deny relief of bail
to the accused.
6] The Single Bench of the Bombay High Court
Aurangabad Bench in the case of Hulaji Gangaram Shete Vs.
6
12.26ACB
Balaji Ramji Shinde and others in Application for
Cancellation of Bail No.144/2021, decided on 28.02.2022,
has observed in para 6 as under :
6. It is to be noted that the said non cognizable
offence appears to have been registered under Section 155
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the
police have not taken any recourse to Section 155 (2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor the present applicant
had taken further legal steps by filing private complaint
before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class for
taking further legal recourse. Under such circumstance, if
authorities as well as the applicant himself has not taken
action, that fact as alleged in the N.C. complaint cannot be
taken as a ground for cancellation of bail. If actions are
taken by this Court such as cancellation of bail on the basis
of the N.C. complaints, then every informant would come
to this Court with a prayer of cancellation of bail. What is
expected is that the legal recourse that is available to the
informant/witnesses and/or to the police should be
exhausted so that the concrete evidence can be before this
Court to take extreme step of cancellation of bail. When
bail is granted after considering all the merits involved,
then its cancellation cannot be on the basis of mere
lodging of a non cognizable offence.
Thus, in the present case also, no step as
provided under Section 155 (2) is either taken by the Police
nor any complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class
filed by the applicant herein.
7] The law regarding cancellation of bail has been
sell settled in catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court
7
12.26ACB
to the effect that the cancellation of bail can be ordered
only on the strong ground and the bail already granted on
merits should not be cancelled by the High Court unless it
appears that the accused is interfering with the course of
justice by tampering with the evidence. It is also trite law
that power to cancel the bail has to be exercised with
caution and great circumspection in appropriate cases. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State [Delhi
Administration] Vs. Sanjay Gandhi reported in [1978] 2
SCC 411, was pleased to observed as under :
“Rejection of bail, when bail is applied for is one
thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite
another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a
non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such
a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the
review of a decision already made and can by and
large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening
circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a
fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom
during the trial.”
8] Thus, taking into consideration the above
observations of the Single Bench of this Court and in the
judgment cited above, I am not inclined to exercise
8
12.26ACB
jurisdiction under Section 483 (3) of BNSS for cancellation
of bail. Hence, the present application is hereby rejected.
9] The observations made herein above against the
complainant are prima facie in nature and may not
influence any other Court.
[MEHROZ K. PATHAN]
JUDGE
DDC
Checking your session…