Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2330 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 March, 2026

CRM-M--62679-2023                                                                 1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

103-1                                                 CRM-M-62679-2023
Ashok Kumar                                                      ....Petitioner
                                            V/s
State of Haryana and another                                     ....Respondents
Date of decision: 12.03.2026
Date of Uploading : 12.03.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for
             Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.
             None for respondent No.2.
                                           *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of the

Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 vide

order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) P 7) passed by Additional Sessions

Judge, Jhajjar in FIR No.364 dated 09.10.2021 regis registered tered for offences

punishable under Sections 302, 379-B, 379 B, 395, 396, 397, 412, 212, 201, 120 120--B,

109 of IPC and Sections 25, 27, 29 of the Arms Act at Police Station

Asuada, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

2. The relevant portion of the order passed by Additiona Additionall Sessions

Judge, Jhajjar, reads as under:

"5. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application for bail filed by the petitioner petitioner-accused accused is allowed. He is ordered to be released on bail on executing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. Copy of this order be sent to learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for necessary compliance. Record of this bail application be consigned to records, after due compliance."

1 of 8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

impugned order passed by the Court belo below granting regular bail to

respondent No.2 No. is illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside as the same

has been passed without proper appreciation of the material collected during

investigation. Learned counsel has further iterated that Court below has investigation.

failed ailed to appreciate the gravity of the allegations involved in the present

case as the offence in question pertains to a brutal murder committed with

firearms in the course of robbery and, therefore, the Court below ought not

to have granted the concession of regular bail to respondent No.2. Learned

counsel has emphasized that respondent No.2 is a habitual offender and as

many as 09 other criminal cases are stated to be pending against him,

including cases involving offences under Sections 302, 307 IPC and the

Arms Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial in the present

case is still at a preliminary stage and the prosecution witnesses are yet to be

examined. Only the complainant Ashok has been partly examined and an

application under Section Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused

persons is still pending before the trial Court. Considering onsidering the criminal

antecedents of respondent No.2 and the stage of the trial, there exists a

strong likelihood that he may influence or intimidate the pr prosecution osecution

witnesses. Furthermore, the Court below has ignored the settled principles

governing the grant of bail and passed the impugned order in a mechanical

manner. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has

prayed that the impugned impugned order granting bail to respondent No.2 be set aside

and the concession of bail granted to him be cancelled.

2 of 8

4. Learned State counsel has iterated that the impugned order

granting regular bail to respondent No.2 has been passed after due

consideration of of the facts and circumstances of the case case. Learned State

counsel has further iterated that respondent No.2 has been on bail since the

passing of the impugned order and there is no allegation that he has misused

the concession of bail or flouted any conditions governing the bail in any

manner. Furthermore, petitioner has not placed any material on record to

show that respondent No.2 has attempted to influence witnesses, tamper

with evidence, or hamper the investigation after being relea released sed on bail.

Learned counsel has further iterated that the power under Section 439(2)

Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in cases where the accused has misused the

concession of bail, interfered with the course of justice or violated the

conditions of bail, none none of which are alleged or established in the present

case.

5. No one has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

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

perused the record.

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

3 of 8

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 a 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 ated any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting bail) or on account of such accused 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 offe offence(s) nce(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 der (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 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 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.

4 of 8

(v) The factors for consideration 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 flouted 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 no nott 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 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
          VI.        Where a plea made under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973 raises

grounds regarding "cancellation of bail" as also for "setti "setting ng 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 regular bail order granted to the

respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-7)) passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. In the present case, the petitioner has not

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

bail, respondent espondent No.2 No. has attempted to influence witnesses, tamper with

evidence or violate any condition imposed by the Court. The apprehensions

expressed by the petitioner are largely speculative and not suppor supported by any

cogent material. The scope of consideration before this Court, however, is

limited. It is trite that the parameters governing cancellation of bail are

5 of 8

distinct from those governing grant of bail. Once bail has been granted, it

cannot be cancelled cancelled in a routine manner unless it is shown that the accused

has misused the concession of bail, has attempted to tamper with evidence,

has influenced witnesses, has evaded the process of law or that the order

granting bail is perverse, illegal or based on wh wholly olly irrelevant

considerations. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the Court

below has granted the concession of regular bail to respondent No.2 2 after

considering the nature of allegations, the period of custody undergone by

the accused and other other relevant circumstances. The order cannot be said to

have been passed without application of mind. Furthermore, the petitioner

has failed to place any material on record to show that after being released

on bail, respondent No.2 has misused the concession of bail,, attempted to

influence or threaten witnesses, witnesses tampered with evidence evidence, or violated any of

the conditions imposed by the Court.

Court The grounds raised by the petitioner

primarily relate to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the mer merits its of

the case, which were available at the time of consideration of the bail

application and cannot be re-agitated re agitated in proceedings for cancellation of bail

in the absence of any supervening circumstances. The apprehensions

expressed by the petitioner are general in nature and are not supported by

any specific instance of misconduct on the part of respondent No. No.2 after

grant of regular bail. It is also not disputed by the State that respondent

No.2 has joined the investigation as and when called and is ava available ilable to face

trial. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any cogent or

overwhelming reason to cancel the regular bail granted to him. Mere

dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the Court below which has granted the

6 of 8

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

regular bail. However, these aspects were already available before the

Court below at the time of consideration of the bail application. The

impugned order reflects that the Court below has taken into account the

period of custody of the accused and the progress of the trial while granting

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 without concrete ma material terial cannot justify the

cancellation of bail.

The order passed by the Court below 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

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

ground to hold that the Court below, while passing the impugned order, has

overstepped its jurisdiction or has not exercised the same in right

perspective. Therefore, the petition(s) in ha 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 regular bail 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 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of regular bail

7 of 8

granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.

                                            12.09.2023 (Annexure P-7)
                                                                 P

passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
                              J      Jhajjar
                                     Jhajjar, 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

March 12, 2026
Ajay


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




                               8 of 8