Ankush vs State Of Haryana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 3987 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ankush vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 April, 2026

                     CRM-M--12400-2026                                                                  1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                     117                                                    CRM-M-12400-2026

                     Ankush                                                            ....Petitioner
                                                              V/s
                     State of Haryana and another                                      ....Respondents

                     Date of decision: 30.04.2026
                     Date of Uploading : 30.04.2026

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
                     Present:      Mr. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                   Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.
                                                             *****
                     SUMEET GOEL,
                            GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483(2) of Cr.P.C.

seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order

dated 23.01.2026 (Annexure P-2) P 2) passed by Additional Sessions Judge,

Hisar in FIR No.452 dated 04.08.2022 registered for offences punishable

under Sections 148, 149, 302, 365, 120-B 120 B of IPC (offences under Sections

216 & 364 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar.

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

Judge, Hisar, reads as under:

"11. Considering the given facts and circumstances and without commenting o the merits of the case, the instant application is allowed. The applicant Sachin alias Shinu is admitted to bail on his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/ Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Area/Duty Magistrate concerned. Papers pertaining to the application in hand be tagged with the main case after due compliance."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

impugned order passed by the Court below granting regular bail to

respondent No.2 is legally unsustainable and liable to be set set-aside. Learned

counsel has further iterated that the respondent No.2 is not only specifically

named in the FIR but has also been attributed a clear and active role in the

commission sion of the offence. According to learned counsel, the respondent

No.2 was a part of the unlawful assembly which abducted the deceased Lalit

and participated in the brutal assault leading to his death. It has been further

contended that the involvement of of respondent No.2 is further substantiated

by the video recording of the incident wherein he is clearly visible while

beating the deceased which establishes his direct participation. It has been

further contended that the Court below has failed to appreci appreciate ate the gravity

and seriousness of the offence. Furthermore, the nature of allegations

coupled with the manner in which the crime has been committed has been

completely ignored by the Court below while passing the impugned order.

Moreover, the Court below below has granted the bail on the ground of parity

which is wholly misplaced as the role of respondent No.2 is distinguishable

from that of other co-accused co accused who have been granted the concession of bail.

Learned counsel has emphasized that the Court below has granted the bail

primarily on the ground of long incarceration without considering that the

delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner. It has been further

contended that there is reasonable apprehension that respondent No.2, being

closely connected connected with the family of the deceased' deceased's in-laws, laws, may influence

or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. The possibility of tampering with

the evidence and threatening the witnesses cannot be ruled out especially in

view of the nature of the offence and relationship relationship between the parties. It has

been further argued that the impugned order has been passed in a AJAY KUMAR 2026.04.30 17:18 mechanical manner without application of mind. Thus, kkeeping I attest to the accuracy and eeping in view the

gravity of offence, offence cancellation of the regular bail granted to respondent

No.2 is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has

submitted that the impugned order has been passed after duly considering all

the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of

custody undergone by respondent No.2 and the stage of trial. According to

learned State counsel, there is no material on record to suggest that

respondent No.2 has misused the concession of bail after his release.

Furthermore, there is allegation of his having threatened or influenced any

prosecution witness, tampered with evidence or attempted to evade the

process of law.

4.1. Since this Court has proceeded to adjudicate upon the petition

in hand,, at limine stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue

notice to 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 aside of a bail order"; the factors required to be AJAY KUMAR 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 challenge to an order granting bail before a superior Court upon merit 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 of bail" or for "setting aside of a bail order." or on both accounts.

II. Plea seeking cancellation of Regular Bail.

(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 used 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 of akin nature. In other words, a Sessions Court can ca cancel ncel 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 in a situation whe wherein rein 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 the 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 in a plea for cancellation oof 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 flouted the cancellation of

2026.04.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and bail, whether bail ail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud or concealing integrity of this document

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) Wheree such plea raises ground(s) that bail has been granted on account of misrepresentation of facts or a fraud having been played on Court which has granted bail or concealment of material/relevant facts; it would be expedient 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 bey 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 impugned order (Annexure P P-2)) passed by Additional

Sessions Judge, Hisar. 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 influence the

investigation/trial or otherwise.. It is settled law that once bail has been

granted anted 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 has been a subsequent

supervening circumstance warranting such cancell cancellation.

ation. 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

Court that the FIR was registered on 04.08.2022 and trial is underway.

It is trite law that the consideration(s) for grant of bail and for

cancellation of bail are distinct. Cancellation of bail already granted requires

demonstration of supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty,

tampering with evidence, intimidation 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 by itself, is not

sufficient to recall such an order. In the present case case, the allegations against

respondent No.2 are undoubtedly serious in nature. The record also

indicates that the respondent No.2 has been named in the FIR and is alleged

to have participated in the occurrence. However, these aspects were within

the knowledge knowledge of the Court below at the time of passing the impugned

order. The Court below, while granting bail, has taken into consideration

the period of incarceration undergone by respondent No.2 as well as the

stage of the trial and has also extended the benef benefit of parity with co-accused.

accused.

No o specific or credible material has been placed on record to substantiate

that respondent No.2 has misused the concession of bail or interfered with

the investigation process. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court Cou

below has conclusively considered the nature of allegations as also the

period of custody undergone by respondent No.2. There appears to be no

perversity, 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 judicial mind. This Court, keeping

in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the ca case(s) se(s) in hand,

does not find any good ground to hold that the Additional Sessions Court,

Hisar while passing the impugned order, has overstepped its jurisdiction or

has not exercised the same in right perspective. Therefore, the petition(s) in

hand deserves deserv 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 to respondent No.2 vide the impugned order. Therefore, the

petition in hand deserves des rejection.

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

under Section 483(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of regular bail

order dated 23.01.2026 (Annexure P-22)) passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Hisar is dismissed.

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

hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of

the case.

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

                                                                       (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                                          JUDGE
                     April 30, 2026
                     Ajay
                                  Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes/No
                                  Whether reportable:                     Yes/No