A trial court is empowered to cancel bail granted by a Supreme Court / High Court upon any violation of the bail conditions. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka v. Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni.
The Court relied upon the dictum laid down in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [AIR 1978 SC 179], which established that “a court of session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court.”
Subsequently, in Preetha Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala & Connected Case [2025:KER:17607], the High Court of Kerala upheld the power of a Sessions Court or a Magistrate to cancel bail granted by the High Court in instances of a breach of bail conditions.
In the aforementioned case, it was contended that the Magistrate’s Court lacked the jurisdiction to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), as this provision exclusively governs the powers of the High Court and the Court of Session regarding bail.
The High Court observed that the original bail order had specifically stipulated that should the conditions be violated, the prosecution was at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to seek cancellation. Therefore, the High Court held that notwithstanding the application being filed under Section 439(2) of the CrPC, the power exercised by the Magistrate—pursuant to the liberty expressly granted by the High Court—was to be construed as power exercised under Section 437(5) read with Section 439(2) of the CrPC. On this basis, the High Court affirmed the Magistrate’s order cancelling the bail.
