Common Order:

1. These petitions are filed under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking cancellation of anticipatory bails.

2. The prosecution has filed the present petitions, being Crl.P. Nos. 10943, 10944 and 10945 of 2026, seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Accused No.2, Accused No.1 and Accused No.3, respectively, in Crime No.413 of Saroornagar Police Station. The said accused were granted anticipatory bail pursuant to the orders passed in Crl.P. Nos. 7866 of 2026, 7458 of 2026 and 6104 of 2026, respectively.

3. Since all three petitions have been filed by the prosecution seeking the same relief, namely, cancellation of bail, against the accused in the very same crime, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioners and Ms. Esha Sarda, learned Counsel for respondents.

5. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents were granted anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.413 of 2026 of Saroornagar Police Station, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 80 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”). The anticipatory bail was granted by this Court on 21.05.2026 in Crl.P. No.7866 of 2026, on 29.05.2026 in Crl.P. No.7458 of 2026, and on 01.05.2026 in Crl.P. No.6104 of 2026.

6.1. The case of the petitioner/prosecution, in substance, is that subsequent to the grant of anticipatory bail, accused Nos.1 to 3 allegedly misused the liberty granted to them by threatening the complainant with serious consequences and pressurising her to withdraw the complaint. According to the prosecution, such conduct on the part of the accused amounts to an attempt to obstruct the criminal process and interfere with the ongoing investigation and, therefore, constitutes sufficient ground for cancellation of the bail granted to them. It is further the case of the prosecution that, during the course of investigation, the prosecution witnesses allegedly informed the investigating agency that the deceased had disclosed to them the harassment allegedly meted out to her by the petitioners. It is contended that, notwithstanding the order granting anticipatory bail, the subsequent conduct allegedly attributed to the accused towards the complainant has created a reasonable apprehension that they may intimidate or influence the prosecution witnesses.

               6.2. The prosecution further contends that the continued liberty of the accused, having regard to their alleged conduct while on bail, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence and of otherwise obstructing a fair investigation. It is, therefore, pleaded that, having regard to the gravity of the allegations in the crime, the prima facie material said to be available against the accused, and their alleged conduct subsequent to the grant of anticipatory bail, circumstances exist warranting appropriate protection of the investigation and the prosecution witnesses. On the aforesaid grounds, and particularly alleging that the petitioners threatened and pressurised the complainant to withdraw the complaint, the prosecution seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents.

7.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused, in the counters filed on their behalf, disputed the allegations made by the prosecution. It is contended that the allegations relating to dowry demand, cruelty, and harassment are wholly without substance. It is further pleaded that, although the investigating agency had attempted to arrest accused No.1 notwithstanding the interim protection granted by this Court, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 28.04.2026, declined to remand the accused.

               7.2. It is further contended that, upon consideration of the merits of the matter and in the absence of any prima facie material supporting the allegations, this Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the respondents. According to the respondents, they have strictly complied with all the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail and have duly cooperated with the investigation.

               7.3. Further, the allegations that the respondents threatened the complainant, attempted to influence the prosecution witnesses, or pressurised the complainant to withdraw the complaint are specifically denied. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that, except for bald and unsubstantiated allegations, the complainant/prosecution has not furnished any particulars as to the alleged acts of threatening or intimidation, such as the specific date, time, place, or the identity of any witness to the alleged occurrence. It is also contended that not even a General Diary Entry has been pointed out or relied upon by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation of misuse of the liberty granted to the respondents.

               7.4. It is, therefore, the specific contention of the respondents that, in the absence of any material demonstrating violation of the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of the investigation, likelihood of absconding, or any other misuse of the liberty granted by this Court, the allegations made in the petitions seeking cancellation of bail remain wholly unsubstantiated. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no compelling circumstance warranting cancellation of the anticipatory bail has been made out and prays for dismissal of the petitions.

8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

9. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of bail and cancellation of bail operate in different fields. Once bail is granted, its cancellation ordinarily requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as misuse of the liberty granted, violation of bail conditions, interference with the administration of justice, intimidation or influencing of witnesses, tampering with evidence, obstruction of investigation or trial, evasion of the process of law, or other supervening circumstances affecting a fair investigation or trial.

10. In Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Supreme Court held that cancellation of bail requires “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances”. At the same time, interference may also be warranted where the original order granting bail is itself perverse, illegal, or based on irrelevant considerations or disregard of material factors, as recognised in Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 and Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 16 SCC 508. Thus, the correctness of the original bail order and subsequent misuse of liberty constitute distinct inquiries.

11. In the present case, the principal ground urged by the prosecution for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that, subsequent to the grant of bail, they allegedly threatened, intimidated and pressurised the complainant to withdraw the complaint. The alleged possibility of influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence and interfering with the investigation is also relied upon, but essentially as a consequence of the alleged threat to the complainant. The question, therefore, is whether the alleged misuse of liberty is supported by sufficient and legally acceptable material warranting cancellation of bail.

12. Though the prosecution/complainant alleges that respondent Nos.1 to 3 threatened and coerced the complainant to withdraw the complaint, the pleadings contain no particulars as to which accused allegedly committed the act, or when, where, how, or in whose presence such intimidation was made. The pleadings further do not disclose whether the complainant reported the alleged incident to the Investigating Officer or any competent authority, nor is any contemporaneous complaint, General Diary entry, statement, or consequential action by the Investigating Agency referred to or placed on record. The absence of a contemporaneous complaint, by itself, may not disprove an allegation of intimidation; however, in the present case, the absence of particulars and supporting material assumes significance as the alleged post-bail intimidation constitutes the principal basis for seeking cancellation of bail.

13. The allegations regarding possible influence over witnesses, tampering with evidence and interference with the investigation also remain in the nature of apprehensions, without specific material demonstrating that any such act has actually occurred or was attempted. Except for the allegations contained in the prosecution/complainant’s pleadings, no independent or convincing material has been placed before this Court to establish misuse of the liberty granted to the respondents.

14. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to place on record the cogent and overwhelming circumstances required for cancellation of bail. There is no material presently demonstrating violation of the bail conditions, interference with the administration of justice, intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, obstruction of investigation, evasion of the process of law, or any other supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of the anticipatory bail. The above observations are confined to the question of cancellation of bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying allegations or the evidentiary value of the material that may be collected during investigation.

15. Accordingly, in the absence of cogent and legally acceptable material establishing misuse of the liberty granted to the respondents or any other circumstance warranting cancellation of bail, the prayer of the prosecution cannot be accepted. The petitions seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail are, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.