Mohd Jakir vs State Of Haryana And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5089 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohd Jakir vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 November, 2025

CRM-M--60803-2025                                                                   1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

230
                                                        CRM-M-60803-2025
                                                       Date of decision: 13.11.202
                                                                              .2025
                                                    Date of Uploading: 13.11.2025
                                                                         .11.2025
Mohd. Jakir
                                                                   ....Petitioner
                                            V/s
State of Haryana and another
                                                                   ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:      Mr. Ravi Ambawata, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
              None for respondent No.2.
                                           *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483(2) read with

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking cancellation of regular bail granted

to respondent No.2 vide order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P P-4)

4) passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal in FIR No.7 No.72 2 dated 08.08.2025 registered

for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of

BNS, 2023 at Police Station Utawar, District Palwal.

2. The relevant portion of the order passed by Additional Sessions

Judge, Palwal, reads as under:

"10. Keeping in view the above reason and discussion, bail application is allowed and applicant (Nayyum) is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty magistrate concerned. Copy of this ord order er be sent to learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. Copy of this order be sent to concerned Superintendent District Jail through email.

1 of 8

11. No expression of this order shall be construed to be an opinion upon the merits of the case. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the Court

below has erred in granting bail to the respondent No.2 despite the gravity

and seriousness of the offence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the

respondent No.2, No.2, in connivance with one Khushnuma, prepared a forged

and fabricated Nikahnama by gorging the signatures of the petitioner and

falsely showing his presence as a witness to a marriage of which he has no

knowledge. According cording to learned counsel, after being released on regular

bail vide impugned order, the respondent No.2 has been threatening and

pressurizing the petitioner to compromise the matter. Learned counsel has

further submitted that the Court below has failed tto o appreciate the gravity of

the offence, the possibility of the accused interfering with the investigation

and the potential threat to the life of the petitioner. Learned counsel has

further submitted that the seriousness of the offence involving forgery of a

legal document outweighs the factor of absence of previous criminal

antecedents. It has been further argued that the impugned order has been

passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. Thus, kkeeping eeping

in view the gravity of offence, offence cancellation cellation of the regular bail granted to

respondent No.2 is entreated for.

4. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, learned State counsel

has filed reply reply dated 07.11.2025 by way of affidavit of Mohinder Singh,

HPS Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hath Hathin, in, District Palwal has been filed

by the State of Haryana; relevant whereof reads as under:

under:-

2 of 8

"3. That after registration of the present FIR, the initial investigation of the case was conducted by SI Mahesh Kumar, during which the statements of the witnesses ses were recorded. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was taken over by Inspector/SHO Renudevi, Police Station Uttawar, District Palwal. During the course of investigation, sufficient evidence was found against accused Nayum (respondent No. 2) son of o Israil, resident of Roopdaka, Police Station Uttawar, District Palwal, making him liable for arrest. Accordingly, on 20.08.2025, the accused Nayum (respondent no. 2) was arrested as per rules and his disclosure statement was recorded. As per the disclosu disclosure re statement, it was necessary to locate the house of the Maulvi who had prepared the forged Nikahnama, situated at Jurheda (Kaman), Rajasthan. Therefore, the accused (respondent no. 2) was produced before the Ld. Court on 21.08.2025 and two days of police remand was obtained. During police custody, the accused (respondent no. 2) gave a second/supplementary disclosure statement and according to it, on 22.08.2025, he got the forged Nikahnama recovered from the rented house of Arif son of the accused's maternal al aunt (Mosi), located at Badkali, District Nuh. The document was seized by the police through a formal recovery memo which was separately prepared. The accused also pointed out the place of occurrence, for which a site plan and recovery sketch was separa separately tely drawn. The accused (respondent no. 2) was then produced before the Ld. Court on 23.08.2025 and upon the Ld. Court's order for judicial custody, he was sent to District Jail Neemka, Faridabad.

4. That the Ld. Court of A.S.J., Palwal granted regular bbail ail to the respondent no. 2 namely Nayum vide order dated 22.09.2025.

5. That in the present case, the arrest of accused Arif resident of Jamalgarh, District Nuh and his associate Maulvi (who prepared the forged Nikahnama) is still pending.

6. That the present case is pending before the Ld. Court of J.M.I.C., Hathin, District Palwal and the same is fixed for 12.01.2026 for appearance. Charge is yet to be framed in this case.

7. That in compliance of order dated 31.10.2025, the investigating agency served ved a notice to the respondent no. 2 and informed him about the pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble High Court as well as about the next date of hearing i.e. 13.11.2025. The said notice has

3 of 8

been received by the respondent no. 2, the copy ooff notice is attached herewith as annexure R-1."

Learned State counsel has raised submissions in tandem with

the above-said above reply.

Learned State counsel submits that respondent No.2 stands

informed in terms of order dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court.

Cou

However, none has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have

perused the available record.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court

passed in CRM-M-9029-2023,, titled as Dinesh Madan vs. State of

Haryana and another, decided on 17.05.2024; relevant whereof reads as

under:-

"17. As an epilogue to above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I. (i) There is a conceptual distinction, between cancellation of bail"& "setting-aside of a bail order".. In a plea seeking cancellation of bail";; the factors required to be considered are akin to supervening circumstances/events or mis-conduct conduct of accused whereas in a plea seeking"setting-aside of a bail order"; the factors required to be considered are akin to the order in question being unjustified or illegal or not based on relevant consideration(s). In other words, a plea seeking "setting aside of a bail order" is more in the nature of laying challeng challengee to an order granting bail before a superior Court upon merits thereof.

(ii) It would be pragmatic as also desirable, for the cause of ease and clarity, that a plea filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 clearly states as to whether the plea is for"cancellation cellation of bail" or for "setting aside of a bail order." or on both accounts.

II. Plea seeking cancellation of Regular Bail.

4 of 8

(i) A High Court has power to cancel regular bail granted by itself or by a Sessions Court or by a Magistrate's Court.

(ii) A Sessions Court has a power to cancel regular bail granted by High Court or by itself or by a Magistrate's Court. However, the Sessions Court can cancel regular bail granted by High Court only where the accused has violated any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting bail) or on account of such accused having misused liberty granted to him by trying to influence witness(s) or having tried to delay trial by absenting himself or having committed another offence(s) while on bail and other factors ctors of akin nature. In other words, a Sessions Court can cancel bail granted to an accused by High Court only on account of such like supervening/subsequent events but cannot adjudicate upon veracity of the High Court order (whereby bail was granted to such accused.)

(iii) A Magistrate does have the power to cancel a regular bail granted by him in terms of Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. 1973. However, a Magistrate does not have the power to cancel regular bail granted by the High Court or Sessions Court except ept in a situation wherein the accused has violated any condition(s) imposed upon him when granted such bail by the High Court or the Sessions Court.

(iv) In case cancellation of a regular bail granted by the Sessions Court is sought for; such plea ought to be ordinarily filed before the Sessions Court itself. However, since there is concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court as also Sessions Court in terms of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973, the filing of such a plea straight away before th thee High Court is not ipso facto barred. At the same time, it would be expedient that such a plea (filed straight away before the High Court) must show cogent reason(s) for not approaching the Sessions Court in the first instance.

(v) The factors for consideration ideration in a plea for cancellation of a regular bail are whether the accused has misused liberty granted to him by trying to influence witness(s) or has tried to delay trial or has committed another offence(s) while on bail, whether the accused has flout flouted ed the cancellation of bail, whether bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud or concealing relevant material and similar factors of akin nature. There is no gainsaying that above factors are only illustrative in nature as it is not axiomatic to exhaustively enumerate them.

(vi) Where such plea raises ground(s) that bail has been granted on account of misrepresentation of facts or a fraud having been played on Court

5 of 8

which has granted bail or concealment of material/relevant facts; it would be expedient dient that such plea be filed, in the first instance itself, before the Court which had granted bail in question.

(vii) The degree and nature of proof required to be shown by an applicant (seeking cancellation of regular bail) is that of preponderance of probabilities and not one of being beyond reasonable doubt.

          xxxx                       xxxx                   xxxx                   xxxx
          xxxx                       xxxx                   xxxx                   xxxx
          VI.        Where a plea made under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973 raises

grounds regarding "cancellation of bail" as also for "setting aside of bail order", such plea has to be essentially m made before the superior Court."

7. The averments made in the petition as also the arguments

raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, indubitably, show that petition

has been filed seeking cancellation of the regular bail order granted to the

respondent No.2 vide order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-3)

3) passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal. It is worthwhile to note herein that it is

not the stand of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 has misused the

concession of anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Court by

threatening/intimidating the witness(s) or by trying to influenc influencee the

investigation/trial etc. It is settled law that once bail has been granted by a

competent Court, the same can be cancelled only when there is cogent

material showing that the accused has misused the concession of bail, has

tampered with evidence or there there has been a subsequent supervening

circumstance warranting such cancellation. Mere reiteration of allegations

forming the basis of FIR or apprehension of misuse is not sufficient ground

for cancellation of bail. It is conceded position before this Co Court urt that the

FIR was registered on 08.08.2025 and same is under investigation. It is trite

law that the consideration(s) for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail are 6 of 8

distinct. Cancellation of bail already granted requires demonstration of

supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering with

evidence, intimidation of witnesses or deliberate evasion of the judicial

process. Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the Court which has

granted the bail or the seriousness of the offence bby y itself, is not sufficient to

recall such an order. In the present case, except for bail assertions regarding

alleged threats, no specific or credible material has been placed on record to

substantiate that respondent No.2 has misused the concession of ba bail il or

interfered with the investigation process. In the considered opinion of this

Court, the Court below has conclusively considered the nature of

allegations, period of custody and absence of criminal antecedents. There

appears to be no perversity, illegality illegality or material irregularity in the exercise

of discretion warranting interference by this Court. The order passed by the

Additional Sessions Court is a well-reasoned well reasoned speaking order and cannot be

said to be suffering from vice of non-application non application of judic judicial ial mind. This

Court, keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the

case(s) in hand, does not find any good ground to hold that the Additional

Sessions Court, while passing the impugned order, has overstepped its

jurisdiction or has not not exercised the same in right perspective. Therefore,

the petition(s) in hand deserves rejection.

8. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of

the case in hand, no ground is made out for cancellation of the regular bail

earlier granted anted to respondent No.2 vide the impugned order. Therefore, the

petition in hand deserves rejection.

7 of 8

Decision

9. As a sequel to the above discussion, the present petition filed

under Section 483(2)) read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking

cancellation ancellation of regular bail order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-4)) passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal is dismissed.

10. It, indubitably, goes without saying that nothing said

hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on tthe he merits of

the case.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

                                                   (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                      JUDGE
November 13, 2025
Ajay

            Whether speaking/reasoned:         Yes/No
            Whether reportable:                Yes/No




                                  8 of 8