Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
103 CRM-M-21948-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.04.2026
Kajal
...Petitioner
V/S
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab.
****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.
Petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail allowed to respondents No. 2 and 3 by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 in CRM-M M-
403-2025 in FIR No. 60 dated 09.04.2024 under Sections 406/498-A Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Muktsar, District Muktsar Sahib.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that concession of anticipatory bail was allowed to respondents' No. 2 and 3 on 15.10.2025. While granting relief, the Court noticed that the matter had been resolved through efforts of Mediator, Mediator although formal execution of the compromise deed was still pending. It is further submitted that after grant of anticipatory bail, respondents No.2 and 3 had abandoned the settlement and were untraceable. They had even sold their office premises, premises vacated the residential address and had no intent to execute any compromise. Thus, they had played fraud on the Court leaving the petitioner etitioner in extreme hardship.
hardship Therefore, herefore, order dated 15.10.2025 granting anticipatory bail to respondents No.2 and 3 deserved to be set aside.
KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21948 21948-2026 (O&M) -2 -
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 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 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)
(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 going 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 KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21948 21948-2026 (O&M) -3 -
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, (19 (1995) 1 SCC 349)]"
The principal of law well established by a line of precedents is that concession of liberty once granted is not to be withdrawn unless there is compelling justification there for.
It is also settled that a bail order can be set aside even in the absence of post bail misconduct, if it is found to be unjustified, illegal or perverse, without application of mind to material factors ((Puran Puran Vs. Rambilas and Another (2001)6 SCC 338, Dr. Narendra K. Amin Vs. State of Gujrat and Another 2008(6) 2008(6) SCC 415, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee (2010)14 SCC, 496, Prakash Kadam and Others Vs. Ramprasad Viswanath Gupta and Another (2011)6 SCC 189, Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508).
Operative part of order dated 15.10.2025 granting anticipatory bail to respondents respondent No. 2 and 3 is reproduced hereinunder for the facility of reference:
"Petitioners are parents-in in-law law of respondent No.2. Their son, the main accused is abroad. With the intervention of Mediator appointed by this Court, the matter had been resolved, though terms of the compromise are yet to be executed. Petitioners have fixed abode and clean antecedents. There is no prospect of their evading process of law. For effecting recovery of KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21948 21948-2026 (O&M) -4 -
dowry articles, they can be aske askedd to join investigation. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed. IInn the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on the anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing personal an andd surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioners shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."
No doubt, it is recorded in the order that with the intervention of the Mediator appointed by the court the matter had been resolved, it is not that anticipatory bail was allowed only on account of the resolution of the dispute. During the hearing of the petition for anticipatory bail also, counsel for the complainant had opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
When anticipatory bail was not allowed on the ground of settlement, there is no question of cancellation of bail on the ground that respondents spondents No.2 and 3 had resiled from the settlement and were refusing to compromise.
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 solel solelyy 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 KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21948 21948-2026 (O&M) -5 -
untenable. It is in our view that the order if allowed to stand will wil 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 resto restored.
red.
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 opinion 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 compromise 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 KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21948 21948-2026 (O&M) -6 -
fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not arise. That apart non fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis non-fulfilment of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of Chapter Chap XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not 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 granting 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 the bail on the ground that respondents No. 2 and 3 have violated terms of the compromise, even if, for the sake of discussion, it is assumed to be so. The There re is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed.
Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
(SHALINI
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
22.04.2026 JUDGE
Kapil
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
KAPIL
2026.04.23 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document