Punjab-Haryana High Court
Alamjit Singh Mann vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 February, 2026
CRM-M--51654-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
106-2 CRM-M-51654-2024
Alamjit Singh Mann ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
Date of decision: 23.02.2026
Date of Uploading : 23.02.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Taanvi Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab
Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Narula, Senior Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS,
2023, seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No
Nos.2 to 5
vide order 29.05.2024 passed by this Court in FIR No.
No.151 dated 30.04.2024
registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B
120 of IPC at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
2. The FIR, as lodged by the complainant, alleges that he is a co-
co
owner to the extent of half share in the land forming part of the joint
holdings of Singhpura Bhuda Joint Farming Society situated at Zirakpur. It
has been further alleged that multiple civil llitigations,
itigations, including suits for
injunction and contempt proceedings, were already pending before the
competent Civil Courts at Derabassi, Mohali and Chandigarh in respect of
1 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 2
the said land and status quo orders had been passed restraining the
defendants from
from alienating specific portions of the property or delivering
possession to third parties. As per the complainant
complainant,, despite the subsistence
of the said civil court orders and the pendency of litigation, the office
bearers of the Society, in connivance with private purchasers and revenue
officials, proceeded to execute the sale transactions in respect of specific
parcels of the joint land beyond their lawful share and projected the same
for commercial exploitation. It has been further alleged that the accused
persons purchased portions of the land with full knowledge of the ongoing
disputes and thereafter, in active collusion with the then Halqa Patwari and
other officials, applied for and obtained Change of Land Use (CLU) from
the Municipal Committee, Zirakpur
Zirakpur by submitting false affidavits and
documents that no litigation was pending in respect of the property. The FIR
asserts that the CLU was procured on the basis of misrepresentation and
fabricated documents, despite the existence of court orders prohibiting
prohibitin
transfer of specific portions and delivery of possession to third parties. It has
been further alleged that on the strength of the said CLU, the accused
persons attempted to commercially develop the land by proposing the
construction of showrooms and by collecting substantial amounts from
prospective purchasers. The complainant further alleges that such acts
amount to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery of documents and use
of forged documents as genuine, committed in furtherance of a criminal
conspiracy,
spiracy, resulting in wrongful loss to him and corresponding unlawful
gain to the accused. On these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be
registered and investigation ensued.
2 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 3
3. Vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of
this Court, the respondent Nos.2
No to 5 have been granted the concession of
regular bail. The relevant of the said order reads thus:
“8. Admittedly, all the offences are triable by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class and all the petitioners are in custody and are not
required by the police for any further investigation. Moreover, it appears
that now matter has been compromised betwe
between
en the parties and it will
take for presentation of challan. In the given circumstances, no purpose
is going to be served by prolonging the judicial custody of the petitioners.
9. In light of above, without commenting on the merits of the case,
the present
sent petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be
released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate
concerned.”
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
anticipatory bail granted to respondent No
Nos.2 to 5 (herein) deserves to be
cancelled as they have grossly misused the concession of bail. Learned
senior counsel has further iterated that the concession of regular bail granted
to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 vide impugned order was premised upon the
compromise dated 27.05.2024 entered into between the parties, wherein the
respondent Nos.2 to 5 (herein) have specifically undertaken that they would
not carry out any activity on the land measuring 4 Bighas 0 Biswa till the
dispute of the petitioner with Singhpura Bhuda Co
Co-operative
operative Joint Farming
Society Ltd. remained pending. Furthermore, the respondent Nos.2 to 5
would maintain status quo with respect to the nature and possession of the
land and in the event they intended to use the land for any purpose or to
seek any permission from any authority, they would first obtain a ‘No
No
Objection Certificate’
Certificate from the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has
further emphasized that despite the aforesaid undertaking, the respondents,
3 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 4
after securing bail initiated proceedings for restoration of the CLU which
has earlier been cancelled by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Urban
Development), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali on 22.04.2024. Thereafter, respondent
pondent
Nos.2 to 5 pursued the appellate remedy before the Director, Local
Government, Punjab and upon remand of the matter, moved an application
dated 13.06.2024 before the competent authority seeking to place additional
documents on record for reconsideration
reconsideration of the CLU. This, according to the
learned senior counsel,
counsel, was done without obtaining the mandatory NOC
from the petitioner which is a clear breach of the settlement which formed
the basis for grant of regular bail. Learned senior counsel has further
furthe
submitted that the conduct of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 demonstrates that
the compromise has been entered into only to secure bail and they never
intended to abide by its terms. It has been further contended that the co-
co
accused namely Daljit Singh, who is alleged to be a key conspirator being
the then Halqa Patwari, has been denied the concession of anticipatory bail
by this Court, which reflects the seriousness of the allegations and the role
of the accused persons in the present case. On the strength of these
submissions, learned counsel has prayed for cancellation of regular bail
granted to respondent Nos.2
No to 5.
5. Learned State counsel has iterated that the regular bail has been
granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 by this Court aft
after
er considering the nature
of allegations, the stage of investigation and the fact that a compromise has
been entered into between the parties.
parties According to learned State counsel,
no material has been brought on record to show that the respondent Nos. 2
to 5 have attempted to tamper with prosecution evidence, influence
4 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 5
witnesses, threaten the complainant, evade the process of law or otherwise
misuse the concession of bail. It has been further submitted that the
investigation has proceeded in accordance with law and final report under
Section 193 of BNSS has been presented before the competent Court of
jurisdiction on 13.09.2024.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5
has iterated that the present petition is misconceived and an abus
abusee of the
process of law. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the
parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are entirely distinct and
unless there is cogent material to show misuse of liberty, interference with
investigation, tampering
tampering with evidence, influencing of witnesses or
likelihood of absconding, the bail once granted ought not to be cancelled. It
has been further contended that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 have fully
cooperated with the investigation and there
here is no allegation, much less any
material, to suggest that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have attempted to threaten
the complainant, influence witnesses or hamper the trial in any manner. It
has been further submitted that the
he mere filing of an application or appeal
before a competent
competent authority cannot be construed as misuse of the
concession of bail. Furthermore, the disputes between the parties are
essentially civil in nature arising out of alleged co
co-ownership
ownership and sale of
joint land and the criminal proceedings have been initiated to give a colour
of criminality to what is essentially a property dispute. Learned senior
counsel has emphasized that the seriousness of the allegations ha
has already
been considered by this Court at the time of grant of bail and the same
cannot be re-agitated
re ted at the stage of cancellation. Moreover, once the regular
5 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 6
bail has been granted by the Court, the same will only be cancelled upon
showing cogent and overwhelming circumstances. Thus, dismissal of the
instant petition is entreated for.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the available records of the case.
8. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by
this Court titled as Dinesh Madan vs. State of Haryana and another in
CRM-M-9029
9029-2023, decided onn 17.05.2024; relevant whereof reads as
under:-
“12. The concept of “cancellation
cancellation of bail” is statutorily manifested in
terms of Section 439 (2) of 1973 Code. This concept was embodied in the
earlier statute i.e. 1898 Code as well albeit with difference(s).
(s). The ratio
decidendi of judgment in case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) makes it clear
that, in the 1898 Code, the bail granted by the High Court could be cancelled
only by it & bail granted by a Sessions Court could be cancelled by such
Sessions Court only.
ly. However, Section 439(2) of 1973 Code has vested
power to cancel bail which has been granted ”
“under this chapter”
” upon both
the High Court as also the Sessions Court. The words ”
“under
under this Chapter”
relates to Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C. of 1973 & hence the unequivocal result
thereof is that the High Court as also the Sessions Court have requisite
powers to cancel “any bail” granted by “any Court” by way of powers
vested under this Chapter. In other words; the High Court is well
empowered to cancel a baill granted by itself or by a Sessions Court or by the
Court of a Magistrate while the Sessions Court is empowered to cancel a bail
granted by High Court or by itself or by a Magistrate. However, a Sessions
Court can cancel bail granted by High Court only oon
n account of
supervening/new circumstances or on account of misconduct of such accused
or on account of violation of any condition(s) imposed by the High Court
while granting bail. The Magistrate can, of course, cancel bail granted by
him but he cannot cancel
ncel a bail granted by High Court or Sessions Court
except when such accused has violated/
violated/contravened any condition(s)
imposed upon by such High Court or Sessions Court while granting bail to
such accused. This position, is indubitable, as a Magistrate ha
hass been vested
with powers for cancellation of bail only in terms of Section 437(5) of 1973
6 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 7
Code whereas the High Court and Sessions Court have been vested with
powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., of 1973 to cancel “any bail granted
under Chapter XXXIII of 1973 Code”.
12.1 Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 deals with “any person who has
been released on bail under this Chapter” i.e. Chapter XXXIII of 1973 Code,
which engirths in itself, Section 438 of the Code (provision envisaging
anticipatory bail/pre-arrest
arrest bail) as well. H
Hence
ence such power operates in
realm of all kinds of bails, whether regular bail or anticipatory bail. Ergo,
there is no conceptual difference between cancellation of regular bail and
cancellation of anticipatory bail except that a Magistrate will not have
statutory
tatutory power to cancel an anticipatory bail granted by High Court or
Sessions Court.
12.2. At this juncture, it would be profitable to consider an issue often
springing up before Courts. Petition(s) labelled as plea(s) for ”
“cancellation
cancellation
of bail” are filed
led in Court(s), more often than not, whether such applicant is
actually seeking “cancellation
cancellation of bail” on account of the accused misusing
the grant of bail or on account of any supervening developments disentitling
such accused to remain on bail OR where the plea raised is that, the bail
ought not to have been granted at all vide the impugned order, in the factual
conspectus of such case. The 1973 Code neither stipulates the words
“cancellation of bail” nor “setting-aside
aside of a bail order” but only stipulates
stipulat
the words “any
any person who has been released on bail be arrested and
committed to custody”.. There is no gainsaying that there is a foundational
difference between “cancellation
cancellation of bail” and “setting-aside
aside of a bail
order”;; a difference which, by way of simile,, can be said to be as stark as
between chalk and cheese. The
he Hon
Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Ranjit
Singh (supra) and Neeru Yadav (supra) has incontestably articulated that
“cancellation of bail” is sought for on account of supervening
circumstances/subsequent
ces/subsequent developments/misconduct of accused etc. whereas
“setting-aside of a bail order” is sought for by laying challenge to the said
bail order on ground of it being perverse or based on irrelevant material(s).
The parameters for consideration of tthe
he two are, accordingly, different and
contrastive.
13. The next aspect that craves attention is as to what are the factors
relevant for considering of a plea for ”
“cancellation of bail” or “setting-aside
aside
of a bail order.”At the very outset; it deserves to be noted that, it is too far
well settled a principle to be ratiocinated upon, that consideration(s) for
grant of bail vis.-a-vis. cancellation/setting
cancellation/setting-aside
aside thereof are entirely
different.
7 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 8
14. In a plea seeking “cancellation
cancellation of bail”
bail”; such applicant ought to
show, primarily, subsequent supervening circumstances such as accused
having endeavored to influence/intimidate witness(s) or accused having
violated bail condition(s) or accused having committed another offence(s) or
accused having secured bail byy misrepresenting/concealing material fact(s)
or bail having been granted in ignorance/violation of statutory provisions
and factors of akin nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Himanshu Sharma (supra) has delineated the nature and kind of such
factors as have been stated by this Court hereinabove.
14.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Gandhi
(supra) has enounced regarding the nature and degree of burden upon the
applicant (seeking cancellation of bail). The plea of such an applicant has to
be tested on the anvil of preponderance of probabilities & such an applicant
is not required to prove, beyond
yond reasonable doubt, the facts pleaded by him
in support of such a plea.
15. In a plea seeking “setting
setting-aside of a bail order”;; the factors
required to be considered are as to whether bail has been granted on
relevant consideration(s); grounds required to be evaluated for grant of bail
have been duly factored into the order granting bail and other factors of akin
nature. The Hon’ble
‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) has
held that the High Court or Sessions Court can set
set-aside
aside an order granting
bail passed by an inferior Court if such order is based on irrelevant
considerations, order granting bail has resulted in miscarriage of justice etc.
It goes without saying that the High Court or Sessions Court; while dealing a
plea for setting-aside
aside a bail order; sits in a jurisdiction, which is akin to
appellate jurisdiction & hence it can look into the veracity and proprie
propriety
ty of
the order (granting bail) from all the perspectives.. However, a Court while
dealing with such a plea, ought not to substitute its own opinion with the one
expressed in the impugned order.
16. It would not be pragmatic to even attempt to lay
lay-down exhaustive
haustive
parameters in this regard as every case, especially a criminal case, is sui
generis. Such a quixotic attempt ought to be avoided as no inexorable
formulae can be laid down in this regard.
17. As an epilogue to above discussion, the following pri
principles
nciples
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”;
bail”
the factors required to be considered are akin to supervening
circumstances/events or mis-conduct
conduct of accused whereas in a plea
8 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 9
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
ting 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
Bail.
(i) A High Court has power to cancel regular bail gra
granted
nted 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 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
self 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 adjudica
adjudicate
te 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
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. 11973,
973, 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
ourt in the first instance.
(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
9 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 10
influence witness(s) or has tried to delay trial or has committed another
offence(s)
ffence(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
ly 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
ncealment 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
ellation of regular bail) is that of preponderance of
probabilities and not one of being beyond reasonable doubt.
III. Plea seeking setting-aside
aside of regular bail order
order.
(i) A plea seeking"setting--aside of a bail order" has to be
essentially filed in the Court, superior to the one which has granted bail.
(ii) In case setting-aside
aside of a bail order granted by the Magistrate’s
Court is sought for, such plea ought to be ordinarily filed before the Sessions
Court. 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 th
that
at 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.
(iii) For setting-aside
aside a bail order passed by a Sessions Court; such
plea, but of-course, will have to be filed before the High Court.
IV. Plea seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail/pre
bail/pre-arrest order
(i) A High Court has power to cancel an anticipatory bail granted by
it or by a Sessions Court.
(ii) A Sessions Court has power to cancel an anticipatory bail gra
granted
nted
by High Court or earlier granted by it. However, the Sessions Court can
cancel anticipatory bail granted by High Court only where the accused has
violated any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting such
bail) or on account of such accused
sed 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 offence(s) while on bail and other
factors of akin nature. In other words, a Sessions Court can cancel
can
anticipatory bail granted to an accused by High Court only on account of
10 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 11
such likes supervening/subsequent events but cannot adjudicate upon
veracity of the High Court order (whereby such bail was granted to such
accused.)
(iii) In case cancellation of an an
anticipatory
ticipatory bail granted by Sessions
Court is sought for; such plea ought to be filed ordinarily before 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. of 1973,
the filing of such a plea straight away before the High Court is not barred.
At the same time, it would be expedient that such a plea (straight away filed
before High Court) must show cogent reasons for not approaching the
Sessions Court in first instance.
(iv) The factors for consideration in a plea for cancellation of an
anticipatory 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 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 na
nature
ture as it
is not axiomatic to exhaustively enumerate them.
(v) 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/rel
material/relevant
evant facts; it would be
expedient that such plea be filed, in the first instance itself, before the Court
which had granted bail in question.
(vi) The degree and nature of proof required to be shown by an
applicant (seeking cancellation of an anticipatory bail) is that of
preponderance of probabilities and not one of being beyond reasonable
doubt.
V. Plea seeking setting aside of an anticipatory bail/pre
bail/pre-arrest bail order
(i) A plea seeking setting aside of an anticipatory bail/pre
bail/pre-arrest
arrest bail
order by a Sessions
ions Court has to be essentially filed before High Court.
(ii) The factor, required to be considered in a plea seeking setting
aside of an anticipatory/pre-arrest
arrest bail order; is as to whether the impugned
order (granting anticipatory bail/pre
bail/pre-arrest bail) has objectively dealt with
nature and gravity of allegations against accused, role of accused in the
crime(s) alleged, need for custodial interrogation, likelihood of accused
influencing the investigation/witnesses, likelihood of the accused absconding
from process of justice etc.
11 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 12
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 made before the superior Court.
9. The factual
ual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that the FIR
in question has been registered at the instance of the petitioner, who claims
to be a co-owner
co owner in the land forming part of the joint holdings of Singhpura
Bhuda Joint Farming Society situated at Zira
Zirakpur.
kpur. It is not in dispute that
civil litigation with respect to the said land has been pending between the
parties for a considerable period and orders of status quo had been passed
by the competent Civil Court restraining the defendants from alienating
specific
pecific portions of the joint land and from delivering possession to third
parties. The allegations in the FIR are that the office bearers of the Society,
in connivance with the private purchasers including respondent Nos. 2 to 5
and the then Halqa Patwari,
Patwari, dealt with specific parcels of land beyond their
share and procured ‘Change
Change of Land Use
Use’ (CLU) from the Municipal
Committee, Zirakpur by submitting affidavits and documents falsely
declaring that no litigation was pending in respect of the property. It is
i
further alleged that on the strength of such CLU, the accused persons
projected commercial development on the land and attempted to sell
showrooms to prospective purchasers, thereby causing wrongful loss to the
petitioner. The record further reflects tha
thatt respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were
arrested during investigation and their applications for regular bail were
dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Thereafter, they
approached
proached this Court and during the pendency of the bail petition, a
compromise dated 27.05.2024 was placed on record, whereafter this Court
12 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 13
has granted them the concession of bail vide impugned order. The principal
ground now urged before this Court seeking cancellation of bail is that the
respondent Nos.2 to 5, after granting the concession of regular bail, have
pursued the proceedings before the competent authority for restoration of
CLU without obtaining a ‘No
No Objection Certificat
Certificate’ from the petitioner,
which, according to the petitioner, is in violation of the terms of the
compromise.
10. However, from the material placed on record, it transpires that
the proceedings relating to ‘CLU’ are pending before the administrative
authorities
ities and the question whether the respondents were justified in
pursuing the same or whether such action is in breach of any settlement
between the parties, are matters which fall within the domain of the
competent civil or statutory forum. The same canno
cannot be ratiocinated upon by
this Court in a petition seeking cancellation of bail. Furthermore, there
here is no
material on record to show that after grant of bail the respondent Nos.2 to 5
have misused the concession of bail by tampering with prosecution
evidence,
nce, influencing witnesses, evading the process of law or otherwise
interfering with the course of investigation or trial. The mere fact that the
respondent Nos.2 to 5 are pursuing remedies available to them before
statutory authorities or that disputes continue
continue to subsist between the parties
in relation to the land, would not constitute a supervening circumstance so
as to warrant cancellation of bail. It is also pertinent to note that the regular
bail granted by this Court was not only on the basis of compromise
promise between
the parties. The Court has
ha also looked into the merits of the case, the nature
of the allegations and the stage of investigation. Furthermore, even
ven if there
13 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 14
is an allegation that the compromise has been violated that alone is not a
valid ground
ound to cancel the concession of regular bail. It is worthwhile to
note herein that it is neither the stand of the State nor of the petitioner
(herein) that the respondent Nos.2
No to 5 have misused the concession of
regular bail granted by this Court by thre
threatening/intimidating
atening/intimidating the witness(s)
or by trying to influence the investigation/trial etc. It is well settled that the
cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from the initial grant of
bail. No
o material has been placed on record to prima facie establish that
respondent Nos.2
No to 5 have influenced witnesses or obstructed the course of
justice in the pending trial. In the absence of any clear, cogent and
convincing material showing violation of bail conditions or misuse of
liberty by respondent Nos.2
No to 5,, this Court does not find any justification to
exercise the extraordinary power of cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent No
Nos.2
.2 to
5 have misused the concession of bail. It is trite law that bail cannot be
cancelled merely on re-appreciation
re appreciation of facts already considered at the time
while granting the same unless there is abuse of the liberty so granted.
11. In the absence of any cogent material to show that respondent
Nos.2 to 5 have misused the concession of regular bail, no case is made for
cancellation of regular bail. The order passed by this Court is a well-
well
reasoned speaking order and cannot be said to be suffering from vice of
non-application
application of judicial mind. This Court, kee
keeping
ping in view the entirety of
the facts and circumstances of the case(s) in hand, does not find any good
ground to hold that this Court, while passing the impugned order has
14 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
CRM-M–51654-2024 15
overstepped its jurisdiction or has not exercised the same in right
perspective. Therefore,
Therefore, the petition in hand deserves rejection.
12. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of
the case in hand, no ground is made out to set
set-aside the regular bail earlier
granted to respondent Nos.2
No to 5 vide the impugned order. Therefore, the
petition in hand deserves rejection.
13. As a sequel to the above discussion, the present petition,
seeking cancellation of regular bail passed by this Court, is dismissed.
14. It, indubitably, goes without saying that nothing said
hereinabove
einabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of
the case.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
February 23, 2026
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
15 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:17:41 :::
