Tripura HC Dismisses State's Bail Cancellation Plea Where Prosecution Explained Neither Delay Nor Supervening Circumstances
The High Court of Tripura refused to cancel anticipatory bail granted in November 2024, finding the prosecution filed its petition over a year later without explaining the delay or producing evidence of bail-condition violations.
Justice Biswajit Palit, sitting singly at the High Court of Tripura, Agartala, dismissed a petition filed by the State of Tripura under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to Sri Raja Saha on 18 November 2024. The petition was filed on 19 December 2025 — more than a year after the bail order — and the prosecution offered no explanation for that gap. The court found no supervening circumstances, no evidence of bail-condition violations, and no cogent material to justify interference. The petition was dismissed on 15 May 2026.
The FIR and the Anticipatory Bail Order
The case originated from an FIR lodged on 20 October 2024 by Smt. Apu Rani Sarkar Roy with the Officer-in-Charge, East Agartala Police Station. The informant, who described herself as the proprietor of Mahalaxmi Stores at Kaman Chowmuhani, alleged that Raja Saha and others had been demanding Rs. 2 crores from her in connection with a land she had sold in 2018. She alleged that the accused persons came to her shop on 19 August 2024, abused her employees, and repeatedly threatened to kill her and her family members if the money was not paid. The case was registered as East Agartala P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024 under Sections 329(3), 308(5), 109, 61(2), and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The other two accused persons named in the FIR were taken into custody during investigation. Raja Saha, however, approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, West Tripura, Agartala for anticipatory bail. On 18 November 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge granted pre-arrest bail, recording an observation that Sections 109 and 308(5) of BNS were not attracted against the accused.
After the charge-sheet was filed, Raja Saha appeared before the trial court and obtained regular bail. By the time the matter came before the High Court, the trial court had framed charges against Raja Saha and two others under Sections 329(3), 308(5), 109, 61(2), and 111(2)(b) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 — including the very sections the Additional Sessions Judge had initially found inapplicable.
The State's Case for Cancellation
The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Raju Datta, advanced two broad grounds before the High Court. The first was that the Additional Sessions Judge had granted anticipatory bail without proper application of mind, having wrongly concluded that Sections 109 and 308(5) of BNS were not attracted. The subsequent framing of charges under those very sections, the PP argued, demonstrated the infirmity in the bail order.
The second ground was that Raja Saha had, after obtaining bail, threatened a prime witness. The PP pointed to an FIR submitted by witness Dipa Dasgupta to the Officer-in-Charge, East Agartala Police Station on 25 September 2025, on the basis of which a separate case was registered. The PP submitted that this amounted to a violation of bail conditions and a supervening circumstance warranting cancellation.
In support, the PP relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1702, which distinguishes between annulment of a bail order — concerned with defects at the time of grant — and cancellation on account of subsequent conduct. The PP also placed reliance on a coordinate bench order of the Tripura High Court dated 23 March 2026 in Crl.P.No.13 of 2026.
The Accused's Response
Counsel for Raja Saha, Mr. Arindam Bhattacharjee, raised a threshold objection: the petition had been filed on 19 December 2025, more than thirteen months after the bail order of 18 November 2024, and the prosecution had offered no explanation for the delay. He pointed out that even the FIR by witness Dipa Dasgupta was lodged on 25 September 2025, itself after a long gap, and the petition followed nearly three months after that.
Counsel further submitted that by the time the petition was heard, the record had been committed to the Sessions Court, charges had been framed, and the matter was pending trial. He argued that there was no evidence on record that the accused had violated any bail condition, and no supervening circumstance had been demonstrated.
On the legal question of what justifies cancellation, counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427, and Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2020) 18 SCC 693, both of which draw a distinction between challenging a bail order as perverse and seeking cancellation on account of post-grant conduct. He also cited Renjith v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1252, for the proposition that the mere registration of a subsequent FIR does not automatically warrant cancellation of bail, and that the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty under Article 21 must be kept in view.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Palit examined the timeline carefully. The bail order was passed on 18 November 2024. The complaint by witness Dipa Dasgupta was submitted to the police on 25 September 2025. The State's petition before the High Court was filed on 19 December 2025. The court observed that there was a long delay in the witness lodging her complaint, and an equally long delay by the prosecution in approaching the High Court. Neither delay was explained during the hearing.
The court noted that it was not the prosecution's case that the accused had violated bail conditions immediately after the order was passed. The court observed that had there been evidence of violation of conditions or witness intimidation, it was the prosecution's duty to file for cancellation promptly. The failure to do so, without explanation, weighed against the State.
On the substantive question, the court accepted that granting bail and cancelling bail are two distinct exercises governed by different considerations. To cancel bail, the prosecution must project supervening or new circumstances. The court found that the prosecution had failed to place any cogent material before it to demonstrate such circumstances.
The court also addressed the argument that the Additional Sessions Judge had erred in finding Sections 109 and 308(5) of BNS inapplicable. While acknowledging that the trial court had subsequently framed charges under those sections, Justice Palit observed that at the stage of hearing a bail application, no court can give a definitive finding that a particular section is or is not attracted before the conclusion of investigation. The framing of charges, however, was a development the court took note of as part of the overall picture.
The court recorded that since the trial had not commenced and witness evidence had not been recorded, it could not be said with certainty that the accused was innocent — he would have to face trial. But that observation did not translate into a ground for cancellation in the absence of supervening circumstances or demonstrated bail violations.
Drawing on the ratio in Ajwar v. Waseem and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 768, as cited by the defence, the court reiterated that bail once granted ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner, and that an application for cancellation must be supported by cogent and overwhelming reasons. The prosecution had not met that threshold.
Order
Justice Biswajit Palit found no merit in the petition and dismissed it on 15 May 2026. No order as to costs was passed. The court directed that the record be sent down to the trial court along with a copy of the judgment, and expressed the expectation that the trial court would make all endeavour to dispose of the case on a priority basis. The case diary, if any, was directed to be returned to the Investigating Officer through the Public Prosecutor. All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.