Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 617 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 January, 2026

CRM-M--58250-2025                                                               1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

101-2                                                CRM-M-58250-2025


Avtar Singh
                                                               ....Petitioner
                                            V/s
State of Punjab and another
                                                               ....Respondents
Date of decision: 23.01.2026
Date of Uploading : 23.01.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:      Mr. Naveen Kumar,, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab
                                           Punjab.
              Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for respon
                                                    respondent No.2.
                                           *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of the

BNSS, 2023 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking setting setting-aside aside of

anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.06.2025

(Annexure P-4) P 4) passed by Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar in FIR No.59 dated

19.03.2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 108 of BNS at

Police Station City Nawanshahr.

2. The relevant portion of the order passed by Sessions Judge,

Mohali, reads as under:

"In view of the statement of HC Ravi Kumar, interim order dated 29.05.2025 is hereby made absolute. Applicant Applicant-accused,, namely, Paramjit Kaur shall abide by conditions incorporated in Section 482(2) BNSS. The bail application stands disposed of. Papers be consigned to the Record Room."

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

below has failed to appreciate the seriousness and gravity of the allegations

1 of 8

while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel has furthe furtherr iterated that

the Court below has gravely erred in granting anticipatory bail to respondent

No.2 without adverting to the suicide note, which according to the

petitioner, constitutes a dying declaration of the deceased. Learned counsel

has further submitted submit that the suicide note specifically attributes acts of

harassment, illegal demands and mental cruelty to respondent espondent No.2 and her

family members. According to learned counsel, the investigating agency

has acted in a biased manner by deliberately withhol withholding ding the suicide note

from forensic examination which weakened the prosecution case and

extending undue benefit to the accused-respondent accused respondent No.2 No.2. Furthermore,, such

conduct itself demonstrates that the accused accused-respondent No.2 has influenced

the investigation and therefore does not deserve the concession of

anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has pointed out that respondent No.2, No.2

who is the mother-in-law mother law of the deceased, is a citizen of USA poses a

serious flight risk and her liberty is likely to prejudice the iinvestigation nvestigation as

well as the trial which facts have completely been ignored by the Court

below while granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the respondent

No.2. Learned counsel has emphasized that the abetment of suicide is a

heinous offence involving involving loss of human life and requires a strict approach.

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 of the anticipatory bail granted to

respondent No.2 is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed short reply dated 12.01.2026 by

way of an affidavit of Raj Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

2 of 8

Sub Division Nawanshahr, District District SBS Nagar and has raised submissions

in tandem with the said status report; relevant whereof reads as under:

"9. That it is further submitted that during the course of investigation of this case, on 04.06.2025, the respondent No.2 No.2- Paramjit Kaur joined the investigation of this case in compliance of the order dated 29.05.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, in bail application No. BA/651/2025, she was formally arrested in this case and released on bail in compliance of the said order dated 29.05.2025. During her interrogation, she produced photocopies of some documents, which were taken into police possession vide separate memo. The said order dated 29.05.2025 was subsequently, confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, SBSS Nagar vide its order dated 06.06.2025.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

11. That it is further submitted that on 17.07.2025, one parcel containing suicide note, parcel containing one register, where something relates to 'Gurbani' has been written on its 2 pages, one boarding pass containing word 'WAHEGURU' four times, were sent to the office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mohali (SAS Nagar) for getting it examined and report of the same is yet to be received.

12. That it is further submitted that the petitioner has specifically named the respondent No.2 and her co co-accused accused Harjinder Kaur in his statement got recorded on 19.03.2025, wherein the petitioner averred that his son- Jaskaran Singh (now deceased) disclosed him that he was being harassed by the respondent No.2 No.2-Paramjit Paramjit Kaur and Harjinder Kaur as they had demanded $ 2,00,000 from Jaskaran Singh. The petitioner further averred that due to this, his son son- Jaskaran Singh became depressed and disturbed and committed suicide.

13. That it is further submitted ubmitted that the investigation of the present case is being carried out according to law and the witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case are being examined and their statements are being recorded by the investigating officer.

officer."

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has iterated

that the present petition is misconceived as the petitioner has failed to make

out any grounds that would warrant cancellation of anticipatory bail already

granted by the Court below. Furthermor Furthermore, e, the order granting anticipatory

bail is a well reasoned and speaking order which has been passed after 3 of 8

considering the material placed before the Court. According to learned

counsel, the respondent No.2 has cooperated fully with the investigation and

no o supervening circumstances or misuse of liberty have been shown by the

petitioner. On the strength of these submissions, the dismissal of the instant

petition is prayed for.

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

perused the record.

re

7. 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 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 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 ular bail granted by High Court only where the accused has violated any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting

4 of 8

bail) or on account of such accused having misused liberty granted to him by trying to influence witness(s) or having tried to de delay lay 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 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 Magistrat does not have the power to cancel regular bail granted by the High Court or Sessions Court except 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 ase 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 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


                               5 of 8



          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."

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

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

has been filed for cancellation of the ant anticipatory icipatory bail order granted to the

respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-4)

4) passed by

Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar. In the present case, the petitioner has not

brought on record any material to demonstrate that after the grant of

anticipato bail, respondent anticipatory espondent No.2 has attempted to influence witnesses,

tamper with evidence, evade investigation or violate any condition imposed

by the Court. The apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are largely

speculative and not supported by any cogent material. The argument that the

Court below has failed to consider the suicide note does not, by itself, justify

the cancellation of anticipatory bail. The evidentiary value of the suicide

note, its genuineness and its legal effect are matters to be examin examined ed during

investigation and trial. At the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, the

Court is not required to conclusively determine culpability or conduct a

detailed examination of evidence. The contention that the suicide note ought

to have been treated treated as a dying declaration also cannot be accepted at this

stage as the same was voluntarily authored by the deceased are matters that

require proof. As regards the allegation of collusion between the

investigating agency and the accused, this Court find findss that such allegations

are bald and unsupported by any specific material. If the petitioner is

aggrieved by the manner of investigation, appropriate remedies are available

under law; however, such grievances cannot automatically result in

6 of 8

cancellation of bail already granted. The plea of flight risk on the ground

that respondent espondent No.2 is a USA US citizen is also not sufficient in the absence of

any material indicating an attempt to flee from justice. It is worthwhile to

note herein that respondent espondent No.2 has joi joined ned investigation pursuant to the

bail order and that the prosecution has not sought cancellation of bail on this

ground. It is conceded position before this Court that the FIR was registered

on 19.03.2025 and the investigating agency has not reported any non-

non

cooperation or attempt by respondent No.2 to interfere with the

investigation. 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 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

below which has granted the bail or the seriousness of the offence, by itself,

is not sufficient to recall such an order. Learned counsel has laid much

emphasis that the allegations against the respondent No.2 are serious, which

according to the petitioner, ought not to have been considered by the Court

below at the time of grant of anticipatory bail. In the considered opinion of

this Court, the petitioner has not brought any fresh or supervening material

before this Court. A mere allegation of seriousness of offence or suspicion

of absconding without concrete material cannot justify the cancellation of

bail. Moreover, such a plea cannot, by itself, render the order granting the

bail perverse. The order passed by the Sessions Court is a well well-reasoned reasoned

speaking order and cannot be said to be suffering from vice of non-

non

application of judicial mind. This Court, keeping in view the entirety of the

facts and circumstances of the case(s) in hand, does not find any good 7 of 8

ground to hold that the Sessions Court, while passing the impugned order,

has overstepped its jurisdiction jurisdiction or has not exercised the same in right

perspective. Therefore, the petition(s) in hand deserves rejection.

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

the case in hand, no ground is made out to set set-aside aside the anticipatory bail bai

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

petition in hand deserves rejection.

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

under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, seeking setting setting-aside aside of

anticipatory ipatory bail order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-4)

4) passed by learned

Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar is dismissed.

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

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

the case.

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

                                                   (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                      JUDGE

January 23, 2026
Ajay


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




                               8 of 8