Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 25 March, 2026
REEMA SAINI
2026.03.26 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-16194 of 2026(O&M) -2-
violated any condition, the opposite side could move for
cancellation/recalling of the order. Learned counsel urges that respondent
No.2 was continuously violating terms and conditions of the settlement agreement and was not bringing the children for visits to the petitioner. DDRs were lodged in concerned police station in this regard. Petitioner, who was the mother was not able to meet her children, causing grave mental stress and harassment. Thus, order of anticipatory bail in favour of respondent No.2 deserved to be cancelled.
In Crl. Appeal No. 2381 of 2025, decided on 02.05.2025, titled Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and Another, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"16. The jurisprudence surrounding cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC is very clear as to that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to enjoy the concession of bail during the trial. The grounds for cancellation of bail as illustrated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 and reiterated in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 4 SCC 272 broadly lay down the grounds on which a bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vii) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It has also been echoed in various judgments that rejection of bail stands on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with the liberty of an individual, and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to.[(5) Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349)]"REEMA SAINI 2026.03.26 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-16194 of 2026(O&M) -3- Perusal of order dated 13.09.2024 would reveal that on 24.01.2024, respondent No.2 was granted interim bail and at the same time, the matter was referred to mediation. Operative part of the order dated 13.09.2024 is reproduced as under:
'3. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Sulakhan Singh, has informed that the petitioner has joined the investigation, in terms of the aforesaid order and his further custodial interrogation is not required.
4. As per the report of the learned Counsellor of this Court with regard to the visitation rights of the children, the parties have effected a compromise as an interim measure.
5. In view of the reasons recorded in the order dated 24.01.2024 and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation; his further custodial interrogation is not required by the Investigating Agency and the parties have effected a compromise, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the this Bench granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
6. However, it is made clear that nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
7. Liberty is reserved in favour of the State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of the order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C., or upon showing any other sufficient cause.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.' Even though it is recorded in the order granting anticipatory bail that the parties had entered into a compromise as an interim measure, it cannot be said that the relief of anticipatory bail was granted only on the ground of settlement. Anticipatory bail was allowed as respondent No.2 had joined investigation and his further custodial interrogation was not required REEMA SAINI by the Investigating agency.2026.03.26 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-16194 of 2026(O&M) -4- In Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another 2001 SCC Online SC 123, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"The Magistrate cancelled the bail to the appellant solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for cancellation for bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It is in our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of process of Court. The High Court clearly erred in maintaining the order. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail and the order of the High Court confirming the said order are set aside. The bail order is restored. The appeal is allowed."
Similarly, in Biman Chatterjee Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and Another 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 973, Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the decision of High Court cancelling bail of the appellant on the ground that appellant had violated the terms of the compromise held as follows:
"7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise. Though in the original order granting bail there is a reference to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of compromise through the media of well wishers, there is no submission made to the court that there will be a compromise or that the appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the appellant had failed to keep up his promise made to the court. Here we hasten to observe first of all from the material on record, we do not find that there was any compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence, question of fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not arise. That apart non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of REEMA SAINI Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not 2026.03.26 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-16194 of 2026(O&M) -5- contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law."
Thus, there is no legal basis to cancel anticipatory bail allowed to respondent No. 2, even if, it is assumed that he has indeed violated the terms of the compromise. There is no merit in the petition and the same stands dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
25.03.2026
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
REEMA SAINI
2026.03.26 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh