Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M
M-35496-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(201)
CRM
CRM-M-35496-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.04.2026
JARNAIL SINGH
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
.....Respondents
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Yadwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.2
No.2.
****
KIRTI SINGH,
SINGH J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 43 439(2) 9(2) of Cr.P.C.,, is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.11.2023 passed by thiis Court, in case FIR No.0009 dated 03.02.2023, under Sections 498A, 120B IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Patiala.
2. The instant FIR was got lodged on the statement of complainant/petitioner herein, who stated that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with respondent No.2, Sukhpal Singh on 06.07.2016 as per Sikh rites, and substantial dowry including gold articles, household items and cash amounting to about ₹6 lakhs was given at the time. However, dissatisfied with the dowry received, the husband and his is family members started harassing harass his daughter and continued to raise further demands, SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M M-35496-2024 (O&M) -2- pursuant to which an additional amount of ₹70,000 was given to them.
them It was further alleged that respondent No.2, a drug addict, even used to subject his daughter to physical cruelty and repeated beatings, which continued even after the birth of their daughter, and despite intervention by relatives and Panchayat ayat on numerous occasions. It was further alleged that in June 2021, the complainant's complainant daughter was severely beaten, administered intoxicants and given grievous injuries, which left her in a critical condition.. The accused allegedly failed to provide medical care, abandoned her at her parental home and retained custody of the minor child. They also alle allegedly gedly refused to return the dowry articles (istridhan) and declined to take her back, and further extended threats to the life of the complainant, his daughter and family members.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while narrating the facts of the case ase in brief, submits that the instant FIR was got lodged against respondent No. 2 with specific allegations of subjecting the daughter of the petitioner to constant harassment and cruelty for the demand of dowry. Though the application for anticipatory ba bail il was dismissed by the learned trial Court, the said concession was extended to respondent No. 2 by this Court upon his joining of the investigation. It is submitted that afterwards the grant of the same, respondent No. 2, misused the said liberty by indulging lging in serious criminal conduct. It is contended that upon receipt of notice in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated by the daughter of the petitioner after the registration of the present FIR, respondent No. 2, SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.24 16:27 armed with a sharp-edged I attest to the accuracy and sharp weapon,, forcibly entered the residence of the integrity of this document CRM-M M-35496-2024 (O&M) -3- petitioner and attacked the petitioner and his family members, during which assault the wife of the petitioner even suffered grievous injuries. It is further submitted that, in relation to the said incident, a fresh FIR has been registered against respondent No. 2, which reflects his propensity to commit offences and blatant disregard the process of law. It is also urged that respondent No. 2 has been constantly extending threats to the petitioner and his family. On these these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has violated the conditions of bail and, therefore, the concession of anticipatory bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
4. Learned State counsel, while reiterating the facts of the case, submits that after being granted anticipatory bail in FIR No.0009, 009, respondent No. 2 allegedly trespassed into the house of the petitioner and inflicted serious injuries upon the petitioner and his family members, including his wife. A subsequent subsequent FIR No.147 147 dated 04.07.2024 was thereupon registered against him.
him The registration of a fresh FIR in respect of the said occurrence was done, wherein while dismissing the anticipatory bail of respondent No. 2, the learned trial Court specifically noted that the wife of the petitioner herein had to be produced before it on a wheelchair, being in a serious condition with multiple stitches on her head. It is submitted that subsequently, respondent No. 2 secured anticipatory bail in the said FIR from this Court, and is since facing trial in both the FIRs.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 was granted the concession of anticipatory bail in both SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.24 16:27 the FIRs registered against him by the complainant side, after he duly joined I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M M-35496-2024 (O&M) -4- and co-operated operated in the investigation. Moreover, Moreover, allegations levelled against respondent No.2 are sweeping and uncorroborated by any evidence. Even otherwise, respondent No.2 is facing trial for the same. As such, there is no ground made out warranting the cancellation of anticipatory bail grant granted ed to respondent No.2.
No.2
6. Heard.
7. In compliance to the order dated 10.04.2026, the petitioner along with his wife and daughter as also respondent No.2 are present in Court today. Despite the gravity of the allegations and the conduc conductt of respondent No.2, this Court in an endeavour to find a consensus among the parties, interacted with them; however, respondent No.2 was rigid and uncooperative in his attitude, displaying no inclination to resolve the dispute amicably and also reflecting reflectin a lack of bona fide regard of the law.
8. Therefore, herefore, proceeding to adjudicate the case in hand on its merits, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No. 2, having been extended the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail, has prima facie failed to conduct himself in accordance with the settled parameters governing such relief and has, instead, misused the concession in a manner that strikes at the very foundation of the administration of justice. The allegations relating to the subsequent incident, culminating in the registration of a fresh FIR, are grave in nature, disclosing the alleged commission of forcible trespass and a violent assault upon the complainant side. The contemporaneous material on record, including the photographs of SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.24 16:27 the injured and the circumstances as reflected in the order dated 31.07.2024 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M M-35496-2024 (O&M) -5- passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, lend prima facie credence to the seriousness and brutality of the occurrence.
9. At this juncture, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms. X vs The State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511, 511, wherein it was held that:
"In In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non non-bailable bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349)] observed that:
"Rejection of a bail in a non non-bailable bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, alre already ady granted.
(Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation llation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."
These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v Subramani Gopalakrishnan (2011) 5 SCC 296 and more recently in Dataram Singh v State of Uttar ar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22:
"It It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation ncellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction SWARNJIT SINGH of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of 2026.04.24 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason CRM-M M-35496-2024 (O&M) -6- justifying the cancellation cellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."
10. It is trite that the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is premised upon a balanced consideration of the right to liberty, vis-
vis a-vis vis the nature of the accusation and the likelihood of the accused absconding or influencing the course of justice. Such protection is not absolute, but is contingent on the adherence to the statutory framework under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
11. In the present case, the prima facie allegations regarding the commission ission of a serious cognizable offence by respondent no.2 during the subsistence of bail protection, and of extending threats to the petitioner and his family members, constitute a clear violation of these conditions, reflecting a conscious disregard for the the authority of law and the sanctity of judicial orders.
12. Merely the fact that custodial interrogation of respondent No.2 is not required, as has been argued by the learned counsel on his behalf, cannot eclipse the gravity of subsequent conduct attribu attributed ted to him, which prima facie indicates a substantial likelihood of respondent No.2 in interfering with the course of justice or endangering the safety of the complainant party.
13. The subsequent registration of an FIR involving serious SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.24 16:27 offences committed committed during the subsistence of bail protection is a relevant I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M M-35496-2024 (O&M) -7- and significant circumstance warranting interference by this Court.
14. Accordingly, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, involving the alleged commission of a violent attac attack k on the complainant side and the extensions of threats to them during the subsistence of bail protection, which clearly demonstrate a blatant violation of the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., and the likelihood of respondent No.2 influencing influencing the witnesses or repeating such acts, this court is of the view that continuation of anticipatory bail protection would be wholly unjustified and detrimental to the interests of justice,
15. Consequently, ently, the petition is allowed. The anticipatory bail bai granted to respondent No. 2 vide orderr dated 29.11.2023 passed by the coordinatee Bench of this Court is hereby cancelled.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 22,, 2026
202
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whethe reportable : Yes/No
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.04.24 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document