Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maheshkumar Ishwarkumar Parmar, was granted regular bail on 08.10.2025 by the learned JMFC, Bharuch, in connection with FIR No. 11199010250535 registered at Bharuch City 'A' Division Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 409, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, the State filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (CRMA No.825 of 2025) before the learned District and Sessions Court, Bharuch, seeking cancellation of the bail. The Sessions Court, by order dated 16.12.2025, allowed the application and cancelled the bail, primarily on the ground that the trial court had not considered the seriousness of the offence while granting bail. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 BNSS, praying for quashing of the cancellation order. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that the Sessions Court had not recorded any finding that the petitioner had misused the liberty granted to him or violated any bail conditions. The court noted that the cancellation of bail was based merely on a change of opinion regarding the seriousness of the offence, which is not a valid ground for cancellation. The High Court held that the power to cancel bail under Section 528 BNSS must be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there are supervening circumstances or evidence of abuse of liberty. Since the impugned order lacked any such reasoning and was passed without application of mind, the High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Court, Bharuch, in CRMA No.825 of 2025, and restored the bail granted to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail Cancellation - Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - The Sessions Court cancelled bail without any supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions, merely on the ground that the trial court had not considered the seriousness of the offence - Held that cancellation of bail requires strong reasons such as misuse of liberty or tampering with evidence, and the impugned order was passed without application of mind (Paras 5-8). B) Constitutional Law - Right to Liberty - Article 226 Constitution of India - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with an order cancelling bail if it is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights - Held that the petitioner's right to personal liberty under Article 21 was infringed by the mechanical cancellation of bail (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order cancelling regular bail passed by the Sessions Court was legally sustainable and whether the petitioner's right to liberty was violated
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Court, Bharuch, in CRMA No.825 of 2025, and restored the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.10.2025.
Law Points
- Bail cancellation requires supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions
- not mere change of opinion
- Section 528 BNSS empowers cancellation but must be exercised judicially
- Liberty is paramount and cannot be curtailed without cogent reasons
