[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shubhpreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 March, 2026
1
CRM-M-15109-2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
101
CRM-M-15109-2025 (O&M)
Decided on : 07.03.2026
Shubhpreet Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. G. B. S. Dhillon, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant
under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
'BNSS') seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents
No. 2 and 3, namely Gurdeep Singh Birdi and Parminder Singh, in case
arising out of FIR No. 0004 dated 21.01.2025, registered under Sections
318(4), 82(1) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at
Police Station Women Ludhiana, District Police Commisionerate Ludhiana,
vide order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
1 of 6
CRM-M-15109-2025 (O&M)
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
complaint filed by the present petitioner alleging therein that she was married
with one Jaipreet Singh on 06.12.2009. After her marriage, she was subjected
to cruelty on account of bringing insufficient dowry by the members of her in-
laws family. Respondent No. 3, who was his father-in-law, also kept an evil
eye upon her and even tried to molest her. She had lodged a complaint against
him. Respondent No.3 had, however, apologized. The petitioner had tried to
settle down at her matrimonial house but was thrown out of the same and was
compelled to lodge another complaint, on the basis of which, an FIR bearing
No. 66 dated 02.07.2021 under Section 498-A of IPC was registered.
However, subsequently a compromise was effected and she again joined her
matrimonial house but was extended beatings by her husband and other in-
laws. On 31.10.2022, she was locked in a room and was assaulted by the
members of her in-laws family. The matter was reported to the police. On
15.03.2022, her husband performed second marriage with one Pardeep Kaur.
She got the present FIR registered against respondents No. 2 and 3 and other
accused. Both, respondents No.2 and 3, moved an application seeking grant of
anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana by passing the impugned order and they were
granted concession of anticipatory bail. Aggrieved from the same, the
petitioner has filed the present petition seeking cancellation of benefit of
anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3.
2 of 6
CRM-M-15109-2025 (O&M)
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana ignored the fact that respondents
No. 2 and 3 were present at the time of performance of second marriage by
her husband and were fully aware of the said fact. Hence, they were the
conspirators in commission of subject offences but this fact was totally
ignored by the Court concerned while passing the impugned order. These
respondents had made a false statement before the Court concerned that her
husband had not solemnized second marriage. They had stated that her
husband was in live-in-relationship with said Pardeep Kaur. However, a
marriage certificate, issued by the Gurdwara concerned, shows that the
marriage between her husband and Pardeep Kaur was performed on
15.03.2025 and respondent No. 2 had even stood witness to the said marriage.
Since this material fact had been concealed by these respondents, therefore,
the benefit of anticipatory bail granted to them is liable to be withdrawn.
Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned
State has submitted that on an application submitted by respondent No. 2, a
detailed inquiry was conducted and it was found that no cognizable offence
was made out against the accused persons. Hence, a cancellation report was
prepared after obtaining approval from the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana
and the same will be submitted before the Court concerned after obtaining
approval from the senior police officers.
3 of 6
CRM-M-15109-2025 (O&M)
5. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed a reply contesting the
petition and asserting that no ground for allowing the same is made out.
Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. Before delving into the contentions as raised by learned counsel
for the parties, this Court considers it necessary to discuss certain principles
which govern the cancellation of bail as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various pronouncements. Reference can firstly be made to Myakala
Dharmarajam vs. the State of Telangana : (2020) 2 SCC 743, wherein it was
observed that an order for cancellation of bail can be made only where such
order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the
Court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie
involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which
has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court
or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Reliance can
further be placed upon Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2020) 5
SCC 1, wherein it was observed that while considering an application for
grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence,
the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of
investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses)
or likelihood of his absconding. It was also observed that whether to grant bail
or not is a matter of discretion of the Court. Similar position of law had been
laid down in Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana :1995 SCC (1) 349.
4 of 6
CRM-M-15109-2025 (O&M)
8. On applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, while
granting anticipatory bail to respondents No. 2 and 3, has duly considered the
nature of allegations and the role attributed to them. The principal grievance
raised by the petitioner is that respondents No.2 and 3 had allegedly concealed
the fact regarding solemnization of second marriage by the husband of the
petitioner and that respondent No.2 had stood as a witness to the said
marriage. However, the said contention, even if assumed to be correct at this
stage, primarily relates to the appreciation of evidence and the role attributed
to the accused persons in the alleged occurrence, which would be a matter to
be examined during the course of investigation and trial. The same, by itself,
does not establish that the order granting anticipatory bail suffers from such
perversity or illegality so as to warrant its cancellation. It is also pertinent to
note that there is no allegation on behalf of the petitioner that respondents
No. 2 and 3 have misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted to them
or that they have attempted to influence the investigation, tamper with
evidence or intimidate any witness. In the absence of any such allegation or
material on record, this Court does not find any supervening circumstance
which would justify cancellation of the bail already granted to them. It is also
significant to note that as per the status report filed by the respondent-State, a
detailed inquiry has been conducted and it has been found that no cognizable
offence is made out against the accused persons and a cancellation report is
proposed to be filed before the Court concerned. In such circumstances, this
Court does not find that the concession of anticipatory bail granted to
5 of 6
CRM-M-15109-2025 (O&M)
respondents No.2 and 3 has resulted in any miscarriage of justice or that they
have misused the liberty granted to them. In view of the settled legal position
that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail and
can be ordered only in the presence of cogent and overwhelming
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has
failed to make out any such ground in the present case. Consequently, finding
no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. All pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
07.03.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
