Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankush vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M--12400-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
117 CRM-M-12400-2026
Ankush ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
Date of decision: 30.04.2026
Date of Uploading : 30.04.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483(2) of Cr.P.C.
seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order
dated 23.01.2026 (Annexure P-2)
P 2) passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Hisar in FIR No.452 dated 04.08.2022 registered for offences punishable
under Sections 148, 149, 302, 365, 120-B
120 B of IPC (offences under Sections
216 & 364 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar.
2. The relevant portion of the order passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Hisar, reads as under:
“11. Considering the given facts and circumstances and without
commenting o the merits of the case, the instant application is allowed.
The applicant Sachin alias Shinu is admitted to bail on his furnishing of
bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/
Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the learned Area/Duty Magistrate concerned. Papers
pertaining to the application in hand be tagged with the main case after
due compliance.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
impugned order passed by the Court below granting regular bail to
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.30 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–12400-2026 2
respondent No.2 is legally unsustainable and liable to be set
set-aside. Learned
counsel has further iterated that the respondent No.2 is not only specifically
named in the FIR but has also been attributed a clear and active role in the
commission
sion of the offence. According to learned counsel, the respondent
No.2 was a part of the unlawful assembly which abducted the deceased Lalit
and participated in the brutal assault leading to his death. It has been further
contended that the involvement of
of respondent No.2 is further substantiated
by the video recording of the incident wherein he is clearly visible while
beating the deceased which establishes his direct participation. It has been
further contended that the Court below has failed to appreci
appreciate
ate the gravity
and seriousness of the offence. Furthermore, the nature of allegations
coupled with the manner in which the crime has been committed has been
completely ignored by the Court below while passing the impugned order.
Moreover, the Court below
below has granted the bail on the ground of parity
which is wholly misplaced as the role of respondent No.2 is distinguishable
from that of other co-accused
co accused who have been granted the concession of bail.
Learned counsel has emphasized that the Court below has granted the bail
primarily on the ground of long incarceration without considering that the
delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner. It has been further
contended that there is reasonable apprehension that respondent No.2, being
closely connected
connected with the family of the deceased’
deceased’s in-laws,
laws, may influence
or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. The possibility of tampering with
the evidence and threatening the witnesses cannot be ruled out especially in
view of the nature of the offence and relationship
relationship between the parties. It has
been further argued that the impugned order has been passed in a
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.30 17:18
mechanical manner without application of mind. Thus, kkeeping
I attest to the accuracy and eeping in view the
integrity of this document
CRM-M–12400-2026 3
gravity of offence,
offence cancellation of the regular bail granted to respondent
No.2 is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has
submitted that the impugned order has been passed after duly considering all
the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of
custody undergone by respondent No.2 and the stage of trial. According to
learned State counsel, there is no material on record to suggest that
respondent No.2 has misused the concession of bail after his release.
Furthermore, there is allegation of his having threatened or influenced any
prosecution witness, tampered with evidence or attempted to evade the
process of law.
4.1. Since this Court has proceeded to adjudicate upon the petition
in hand,, at limine stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue
notice to respondent No.2.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have
perused the available record.
6. 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
seeking”setting-aside
aside of a bail order”; the factors required to be
AJAY KUMAR considered are akin to the order in question being unjustified or illegal or
2026.04.30 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–12400-2026 4not 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 merit
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.
(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 any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting
bail) or on account of such accused
used 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 ca
cancel
ncel 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 (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 whe
wherein
rein 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.
(v) The factors for consideration in a plea for cancellation oof 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
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.30 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and bail, whether bail
ail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud or concealing
integrity of this document
CRM-M–12400-2026 5relevant material and similar factors of akin nature. There is no gainsaying
that above factors are only illustrative in nature as it is not axiomatic to
exhaustively enumerate them.
(vi) Wheree 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 bey
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 “setting aside of bail
order”, such plea has to be essentially m
made before the superior Court.”
7. The averments made in the petition as also the arguments
raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, indubitably, show that petition
has been filed seeking cancellation of the regular bail order granted to the
respondent No.2 vide impugned order (Annexure P
P-2)) passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Hisar. It is worthwhile to note herein that it is not the stand
of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 has misused the concession of
anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Court by
threatening/intimidating the witness(s) or by trying to influence the
investigation/trial or otherwise.. It is settled law that once bail has been
granted
anted by a competent Court, the same can be cancelled only when there is
cogent material showing that the accused has misused the concession of
bail, has tampered with evidence or there has been a subsequent
supervening circumstance warranting such cancell
cancellation.
ation. Mere reiteration of
allegations forming the basis of FIR or apprehension of misuse is not
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.30 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–12400-2026 6
sufficient ground for cancellation of bail. It is conceded position before this
Court that the FIR was registered on 04.08.2022 and trial is underway.
It is trite law that the consideration(s) for grant of bail and for
cancellation of bail are distinct. Cancellation of bail already granted requires
demonstration of supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty,
tampering with evidence, intimidation
intimidation of witnesses or deliberate evasion of
the judicial process. Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the Court
which has granted the bail or the seriousness of the offence by itself, is not
sufficient to recall such an order. In the present case
case, the allegations against
respondent No.2 are undoubtedly serious in nature. The record also
indicates that the respondent No.2 has been named in the FIR and is alleged
to have participated in the occurrence. However, these aspects were within
the knowledge
knowledge of the Court below at the time of passing the impugned
order. The Court below, while granting bail, has taken into consideration
the period of incarceration undergone by respondent No.2 as well as the
stage of the trial and has also extended the benef
benefit of parity with co-accused.
accused.
No
o specific or credible material has been placed on record to substantiate
that respondent No.2 has misused the concession of bail or interfered with
the investigation process. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court
Cou
below has conclusively considered the nature of allegations as also the
period of custody undergone by respondent No.2. There appears to be no
perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of discretion
warranting interference by this Court. The order passed by the Additional
Sessions Court is a well-reasoned
well reasoned speaking order and cannot be said to be
suffering from vice of non-application
non application of judicial mind. This Court, keeping
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.30 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–12400-2026 7
in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the ca
case(s)
se(s) in hand,
does not find any good ground to hold that the Additional Sessions Court,
Hisar while passing the impugned order, has overstepped its jurisdiction or
has not exercised the same in right perspective. Therefore, the petition(s) in
hand deserves
deserv rejection.
8. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of
the case in hand, no ground is made out for cancellation of the regular bail
earlier granted to respondent No.2 vide the impugned order. Therefore, the
petition in hand deserves
des rejection.
9. As a sequel to the above discussion, the present petition filed
under Section 483(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of regular bail
order dated 23.01.2026 (Annexure P-22)) passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hisar is dismissed.
10. It, indubitably, goes without saying that nothing said
hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of
the case.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
April 30, 2026
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.30 17:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link
