[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026

                  IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
                                 CHANDIGARH
               103                                              CRM-M-21948-2026 (O&M)
                                                                Date of decision: 22.04.2026
               Kajal
                                                                                  ...Petitioner

                                                        V/S

               State of Punjab and others                                        ...Respondents

               CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
               Present:        Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab.
                               ****
               SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

Petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 read with Section

528 of BNSS, 2023 seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail allowed to

respondents No. 2 and 3 by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 in CRM-M M-

403-2025 in FIR No. 60 dated 09.04.2024 under Sections 406/498-A Indian

Penal Code, Police Station City Muktsar, District Muktsar Sahib.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that concession of

anticipatory bail was allowed to respondents' No. 2 and 3 on 15.10.2025. While

granting relief, the Court noticed that the matter had been resolved through

efforts of Mediator, Mediator although formal execution of the compromise deed was still

pending. It is further submitted that after grant of anticipatory bail, respondents

No.2 and 3 had abandoned the settlement and were untraceable. They had even

sold their office premises, premises vacated the residential address and had no intent to

execute any compromise. Thus, they had played fraud on the Court leaving the

petitioner etitioner in extreme hardship.

hardship Therefore, herefore, order dated 15.10.2025 granting

anticipatory bail to respondents No.2 and 3 deserved to be set aside.






                CRM-M-21948
                     21948-2026 (O&M)                                                            -2 -

In Crl. Appeal No. 2381 of 2025, decided on 02.05.2025, titled

Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and

Another, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows

"16. The jurisprudence surrounding cancellation of bail under

Section 439(2) of the CrPC is very clear as to that bail once granted

should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any

supervening circumstances circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to

a fair trial to allow the accused to enjoy the concession of bail

during the trial. The grounds for cancellation of bail as illustrated

in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 and

reiterated in Aslam Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 4

SCC 272 broadly lay down the grounds on which a bail can be

cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in

similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of

investigation (iii)

(iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses,

(iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which

would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his

fleeing to another country, (vii) attempts to make himself scarce by

going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating going

agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his

surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It has

also been echoed in various judgments that rejection of bail stands

on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is

CRM-M-21948 21948-2026 (O&M) -3 -

considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with the liberty of an

individual, and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to.[(5) Dolat

Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (19 (1995) 1 SCC 349)]"

The principal of law well established by a line of precedents is that

concession of liberty once granted is not to be withdrawn unless there is

compelling justification there for.

It is also settled that a bail order can be set aside even in the

absence of post bail misconduct, if it is found to be unjustified, illegal or

perverse, without application of mind to material factors ((Puran Puran Vs. Rambilas

and Another (2001)6 SCC 338, Dr. Narendra K. Amin Vs. State of Gujrat and

Another 2008(6) 2008(6) SCC 415, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee

(2010)14 SCC, 496, Prakash Kadam and Others Vs. Ramprasad Viswanath

Gupta and Another (2011)6 SCC 189, Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014)16

SCC 508).

Operative part of order dated 15.10.2025 granting anticipatory bail

to respondents respondent No. 2 and 3 is reproduced hereinunder for the facility of

reference:

"Petitioners are parents-in in-law law of respondent No.2. Their

son, the main accused is abroad. With the intervention of

Mediator appointed by this Court, the matter had been resolved,

though terms of the compromise are yet to be executed.

Petitioners have fixed abode and clean antecedents. There is no

prospect of their evading process of law. For effecting recovery of

CRM-M-21948 21948-2026 (O&M) -4 -

dowry articles, they can be aske askedd to join investigation. In the

given facts and circumstances of the case, but without

commenting on merits, the petition is allowed. IInn the event of

arrest, the petitioners shall be released on the anticipatory bail

subject to their furnishing personal an andd surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioners shall

join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall

abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."

No doubt, it is recorded in the order that with the intervention of

the Mediator appointed by the court the matter had been resolved, it is not that

anticipatory bail was allowed only on account of the resolution of the dispute.

During the hearing of the petition for anticipatory bail also, counsel for the

complainant had opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

When anticipatory bail was not allowed on the ground of

settlement, there is no question of cancellation of bail on the ground that

respondents spondents No.2 and 3 had resiled from the settlement and were refusing to

compromise.

In Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another 2001 SCC

Online SC 123, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"The Magistrate cancelled the bail to the appellant solel solelyy on the

ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied

with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for

cancellation for bail was made and was granted is wholly

CRM-M-21948 21948-2026 (O&M) -5 -

untenable. It is in our view that the order if allowed to stand will wil

result in abuse of process of Court. The High Court clearly erred

in maintaining the order. Therefore, the order passed by the

Magistrate cancelling the bail and the order of the High Court

confirming the said order are set aside. The bail order is resto restored.

red.

The appeal is allowed."

Similarly, in Biman Chatterjee Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and

Another 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 973, Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting

aside the decision of High Court cancelling bail of the appellant on the ground

that appellant had violated the terms of the compromise held as follows:

"7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the

opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail opinion

on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the

compromise. Though in the original order granting bail there is a

reference to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of

compromise through the media of well wishers, there is no compromise

submission made to the court that there will be a compromise or

that the appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in

our opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail

solely on the ground that the appellant had failed to keep up his

promise made to the court. Here we hasten to observe first of all

from the material on record, we do not find that there was any

compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence, question of

CRM-M-21948 21948-2026 (O&M) -6 -

fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not arise. That apart

non fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis non-fulfilment

of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the

Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of Chapter Chap

XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not

contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of

a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of

such compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while

granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said granting

Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the said

provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court

to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for

cancellation of bail in the said provision of law."