'Bail Once Granted Cannot Be Cancelled Mechanically On Unsubstantiated Allegations Of Witness Threat In Politically Charged Cases': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has set aside an order cancelling the bail of a former legislator accused of conspiring to murder a social activist, holding that bail cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of unsubstantiated apprehensions of witness intimidation, without cogent material demonstrating misuse of liberty. The Court observed that allegations of witness threats in a politically charged case, particularly those based on statements of interested witnesses without sufficient independent corroboration, require careful scrutiny.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav was hearing an application filed challenging the Sessions Court's order dated October 1, 2026, cancelling the bail granted to the Applicant on April 4, 2024. The applicant was accused of conspiring in the murder of a social activist who was killed in broad daylight on May 12, 2023.

The applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution has not placed any independent or corroborative material to substantiate the allegations of threats or inducement and mere allegations of tampering with witnesses and evidence are vague and bereft of particulars regarding the exact date, time, place and manner of any alleged incident.

The Court noted that the applicant's name did not figure in the FIR and that there was no direct evidence demonstrating his participation in the murder or any specific act of conspiracy. It observed that CCTV footage showing certain accused persons visiting his residence could, at the highest, establish their visit, while the alleged conspiracy would have to be proved through a complete chain of circumstances during trial.

“… merely because certain witnesses or accused persons are allegedly seen entering or coming out of Applicant's residence, the same by itself would not be sufficient to conclusively establish his involvement in the alleged conspiracy at the threshold. That would be a matter of trial,” the Court remarked.

The Court further emphasised that the gravity of the offence, by itself, could not justify depriving an accused of liberty.

“… gravity of the offence by itself cannot be the sole consideration for depriving an accused of his liberty, particularly when prosecution case against him rests solely upon suspicion and circumstantial evidence,” the Court observed.

Examining the allegations of witness intimidation, the Court noted the political rivalry between the deceased's family and persons associated with a rival political group close to the applicant. It held that the possibility of political rivalry influencing the allegations could not be excluded. The statements of interested witnesses, in the absence of sufficient independent corroboration, therefore required careful scrutiny.

The Court also found that the Sessions Court ought to have examined whether any fresh and cogent material or supervening circumstances had emerged after the High Court's earlier order refusing cancellation of bail. It held that bail could not be cancelled mechanically, observing:

“The power to cancel bail cannot be exercised mechanically or merely because the prosecution seeks reconsideration of grounds which have already been considered by a superior Court solely on the basis of pressure on the prosecution to do so which is prima facie seen in the present case.”

The Court added that apprehensions of witness intimidation must be supported by cogent material and cannot rest on general allegations.

“Though the prosecution has expressed apprehension that the Applicant may influence the remaining witnesses, such apprehension must be supported by cogent material and cannot rest merely on general allegations which in my opinion are prima facie politically motivated when read from the witness statements recorded,” the Court held.

Distinguishing the considerations governing the grant of bail from those governing its cancellation, the Court held that once bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled merely on a different appreciation of material already available or on unsubstantiated apprehensions. There must be cogent circumstances showing that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him or that his continued release would prejudice a fair trial.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Sessions Court's order cancelling bail and restored the applicant's liberty, subject to stringent conditions.

Case Title: Chandrabhan @ Bhanu Vishwanath Khalde v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 2039 of 2026]