Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajeshbhai Mahadevbhai Taylor, was granted regular bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bharuch, vide order dated 10.10.2025 in CRMA No.1526 of 2025, in connection with FIR C.R.No.11199010250535 of 2025 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 of Gujarat filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the learned District and Sessions Court, Bharuch, seeking cancellation of the bail. The Sessions Court, by order dated 12.12.2025 in CRMA No.822 of 2025, allowed the application and cancelled the bail. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 BNSS. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that the Sessions Court had cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the JMFC had not properly appreciated the evidence and the gravity of the offence. The High Court noted that there was no allegation of any supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions by the petitioner. Relying on settled principles, the High Court held that the power to cancel bail under Section 528 BNSS is not to be exercised as an appellate power over the order granting bail; it requires fresh grounds such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or breach of conditions. Since the Sessions Court had not recorded any such finding, the impugned order was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 12.12.2025, and restored the bail granted to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail Cancellation - Supervening Circumstances - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - The Sessions Court cancelled the regular bail granted by the JMFC on the ground that the JMFC had not properly appreciated the evidence and the gravity of the offence. The High Court held that cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely because the Sessions Court disagrees with the trial court's order; there must be supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions. The impugned order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-12) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Quashing of Orders - Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash an order passed by the Sessions Court cancelling bail, as the Sessions Court had acted in excess of its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. The High Court held that the power to cancel bail is not to be exercised lightly and requires fresh grounds. (Paras 1-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in cancelling the regular bail granted to the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, without any supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Court, Bharuch, in CRMA No.822 of 2025, and restored the regular bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 10.10.2025 in CRMA No.1526 of 2025.
Law Points
- Bail cancellation requires supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions
- not mere disagreement with the trial court's reasoning
- Power of High Court under Article 226/227 to quash orders passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction
- Section 528 BNSS does not confer power to cancel bail on merits without fresh grounds
