Bail Once Granted Cannot Be Cancelled Just For Asking”: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Against Bail Granted Under POCSO Act

“Section 483(3) BNSS Is Not An Appellate Power Over Bail Orders… Cancellation Demands Violation of Conditions or Supervening Circumstances” — In a significant ruling Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice V. Srishananda, dismissed a criminal petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The Court categorically held that “bail once granted cannot be cancelled just for asking”, reiterating that cancellation of bail cannot be treated as an appeal against the bail order itself unless there is clear violation of bail conditions or emergence of compelling new circumstances.

The judgment clarified the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court refused to cancel bail merely on the ground that the petitioner disagreed with the Sessions Court’s decision.

“Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Because the Complainant Disagrees With It” — Court On Legal Framework

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Devibai, the mother of the minor victim, seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court, Yadgir to the accused Sunil, who was charged under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 64(1), 137(2) read with 3(5) of the BNSS, 2023.

The Sessions Court had granted bail on 3rd May 2025 with conditions requiring the accused to report to the police station once every three weeks, not threaten witnesses, and cooperate with the investigation.

Challenging this, the petitioner argued that the Sessions Court had ignored the gravity of the offence, which carried a punishment extending to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act. She further contended that the case was still under investigation, and bail at this stage was premature and against settled principles.

However, the High Court decisively rejected this argument. The Court noted, “As a general rule, an application seeking cancellation of bail is to be filed before the Court which granted bail, since it is that Court which has exclusive knowledge of the facts behind the grant or rejection of bail.”

The Court went further to observe, “Even though concurrent powers are vested in this Court, the application seeking cancellation of bail shall not be construed as if it is an appeal over the order of grant of bail.”

“BNSS Does Not Confer Appellate or Revisional Jurisdiction Over Bail Orders” — High Court’s Core Holding

Justice Srishananda emphasized that neither the BNSS, 2023, nor the POCSO Act provides for any appellate or revisional power in the High Court against an order of bail granted by the Sessions Court. The Court clarified,

“Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 is a verbatim reproduction of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. If the legislature intended that a discretionary order of bail could be appealed or revised, it would have expressly provided for such power. No such provision exists.”

The Court stressed that the role of the High Court in cancellation of bail is not to sit as an appellate authority over the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court unless the following are demonstrated:

• Violation of the conditions imposed at the time of granting bail;

• New circumstances that affect the fairness of the trial;

• Tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or absconding.

In the absence of any such allegations, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable.

“Gravity of Offence Alone Cannot Be A Ground To Cancel Bail” — Court Distinguishes Bail Grant from Bail Cancellation

While acknowledging the serious nature of offences under the POCSO Act, the Court firmly held that the seriousness of the charge alone does not justify cancellation of bail once it has been granted subject to conditions.

The judgment records, “If the legislature intended that every bail order in a heinous offence must be revisited as a matter of course, it would have created a statutory mechanism for appeal or review of bail orders. That not being the case, cancellation must be supported by compelling circumstances.”

“Supervisory and Inherent Powers Remain Open, But Not Through Section 483(3)” — High Court Clarifies Remedies

Justice Srishananda further clarified that while cancellation under Section 483(3) was not maintainable in the present circumstances, the petitioner was not remediless. The Court observed,

“If there is a grave and serious error committed by the Court while granting bail, the same can be questioned under the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.”

Therefore, the Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedies if advised.

Petition Dismissed With Liberty To Invoke Constitutional Or Inherent Powers

Dismissing the petition, the Karnataka High Court concluded, “Bail once granted cannot be cancelled just for asking. The present petition is not maintainable under Section 483(3) of BNSS. However, liberty is reserved for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of Cr.P.C.”

The judgment serves as a critical precedent clarifying that Section 483(3) of BNSS does not operate as an appellate or revisional tool over bail orders, and that the power to cancel bail is an extraordinary power that cannot be invoked lightly.

Date of Decision: 24 June 2025