High Court Can Cancel Bail Even After Sessions Court Denial, Rules Supreme Court – Key Takeaways from Abhimanue Case

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying the scope of the High Court’s authority to cancel bail even after a Sessions Court has refused a similar plea. The case, Abhimanue v. State of Kerala (2025), arose from the murder of a political activist in Kerala where ten accused had been granted bail by the trial court. When the State’s plea for cancellation was dismissed by the Sessions Court, it moved the Kerala High Court under Section 484 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – corresponding to Sections 439(2) and 482 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

This ruling clarifies whether a second cancellation plea can be filed before the High Court and defines the extent of its inherent jurisdiction in bail matters under the new criminal procedure regime.

Issues Raised

The primary question before the Court was whether a High Court can entertain a plea for cancellation of bail under Section 484 BNSS after an identical plea has been dismissed by a Sessions Court.

The Court was also tasked with interpreting the interaction between:

• Section 484 BNSS (statutory power of superior courts to cancel bail), and
• Section 528 BNSS (inherent power of the High Court to secure the ends of justice).

A broader issue was whether cancellation of bail requires supervening circumstances such as breach of bail conditions, interference with the trial, or tampering with evidence — or whether mere dissatisfaction with a lower court’s reasoning is sufficient. The case thus brought into focus the delicate balance between personal liberty and public interest in serious criminal cases.

Appellants’ Arguments

The appellants contended that once the Sessions Court had rejected a cancellation application under Section 484 BNSS (formerly Section 439(2) CrPC), the State’s only remedy was a revision or appeal — not a fresh application before the High Court. They argued that allowing successive applications would undermine the statutory hierarchy and encourage forum shopping.

On merits, they emphasized:

• They had spent nearly a year in custody before being granted bail.
• No violation of bail conditions had occurred.
• Their alleged criminal antecedents were insufficient grounds for cancellation.
• The trial was expected to be prolonged given the number of witnesses, and denial of bail would lead to prolonged pre-trial incarceration.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State countered that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are broad enough to entertain a cancellation plea even after dismissal by the Sessions Court.

It argued that:

• The accused were involved in a politically motivated murder, posing a grave threat to witnesses.
• The Sessions Court had granted bail mechanically, without due regard to the seriousness of the crime.
• Protecting the integrity of the justice process justified intervention by the High Court.

The prosecution cited precedents holding that in cases involving heinous crimes, bail can be revoked where the order granting bail is unjustified or perverse, or where liberty of the accused threatens public confidence in the justice system.

Judgment

Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the Bench also comprising Justice A.G. Masih, first addressed the issue of maintainability. The Court held that the High Court could indeed invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS even after a Sessions Court had rejected a similar plea under Section 484 BNSS.

The Supreme Court clarified that these two provisions operate independently:

• Section 484 BNSS confers statutory power to cancel bail.
• Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to act to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain such an application remained intact.

However, on the merits, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in cancelling the bail. It noted that:

• The accused had already undergone about a year of incarceration before bail.
• Except for one, none had violated bail conditions.
• There was no material evidence of witness tampering or misuse of liberty.

Citing its earlier decision in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that bail can only be cancelled upon supervening circumstances or abuse of liberty, not merely because of the gravity of the offence.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored bail to the appellants, imposing stringent conditions including restrictions on visiting the crime district, mandatory police reporting, and prohibitions on delaying cross-examinations or influencing witnesses.

Analysis

This ruling is a crucial precedent under the BNSS framework, affirming that High Courts retain their inherent powers even after statutory reforms.

The judgment underscores several key principles:

• The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction remains unaffected by procedural hierarchy.
• Cancellation of bail should not be used as a punitive measure; it must be based on clear evidence of misuse of liberty.
• Individual liberty, though subject to reasonable restrictions, remains the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court also provided much-needed interpretive clarity on the continuity between the CrPC and BNSS, reaffirming that judicial precedents under the CrPC remain valid unless expressly altered by the new statute.

The decision reiterates the enduring constitutional philosophy that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception”, while preserving the High Court’s supervisory role in ensuring justice is neither compromised by excess liberty nor undermined by overreach.

Conclusion

The ruling in Abhimanue v. State of Kerala (2025) harmonizes the BNSS’s modernized procedural framework with established principles of fairness and liberty. It confirms that while High Courts can invoke Section 528 BNSS to reconsider bail cancellation even after the Sessions Court’s refusal, such power must be exercised with restraint and grounded in compelling justification.

By reinstating bail with conditions tailored to protect trial integrity, the Supreme Court balanced individual freedom and collective interest, setting an authoritative precedent on the scope of inherent powers under the BNSS.

This decision will guide future jurisprudence on the interplay between statutory and inherent powers – a cornerstone of India’s evolving criminal procedure law.