[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
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,
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
the FIRs registered against him by the complainant side, after he duly joined
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
the injured and the circumstances as reflected in the order dated 31.07.2024
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
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
2026.04.24 16:27 offences committed
committed during the subsistence of bail protection is a relevant
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
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whethe reportable : Yes/No
