%&
        (

   Pe 528 of BNSS respondents No 403-2025 in F

   "      # $ %&  '"    "      
                      +,  !"#$  
&'(%) 
  
!)   
 

  (* ) Petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 seeks cancellation of No. 2 and 3 by this Court vide ord in FIR No. 60 dated 09.04.2024 
" *+         ,       ! !' ! !  !) ! ! (" "  '!   (   $ %&  
     %-%-./01-..234%5 !67$7&..)0)..2    877#

















8 $9!$  (


  (      (3) of BNSS, 2023 read with Section ion of anticipatory bail allowed to de order dated 15.10.2025 in CRM-M under Sections 406/498-A #  *   !   $ %&-. -/ %/%. 0 !   )  ! !   "    (")  ")    -. -/ %/%.  )     $ ( Section ed to M-        )    KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document  %-%-./0   In Sanjay Kumar Another, Hon’b 1-           5)       /01-..234%5  In Crl. Appeal No. 2381 of 2025 umar Jangid and Another Vs. M Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed 1-2  (    3&45%6
)"        )!)          (  7  )    !8+  %:% " "     56! ! ! )" 56 ) 56 !  ! 5)6       ! !) "5)6    ! " 5)6 !     " ( )!  !!  - f 2025, decided on 02.05.2025, titled s. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal an served as follows      )"   ! !   ))   "        8 5-4926 3  39-  )  5-44%6         !"" 6       !   )     ! )  5)6* 6! !*!  )   )  ! "     )') # !    -2- titled l and    " )      4%63         "    #   KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document  %-%-./0   7 The p concession of compelling just It absence of pos perverse, witho and Another (2 Another 2008( (2010)14 SCC, Gupta and Ano SCC 508). Op to respondent reference: /01-..234%5   )!  7!<= >" The principal of law well establishe on of liberty once granted is not to ng justification there for. It is also settled that a bail orde of post bail misconduct, if it is fou , without application of mind to mater er (2001)6 SCC 338, Dr. Narendra 008(6) SCC 415, Prasanta Kuma SCC, 496, Prakash Kadam and Oth Another (2011)6 SCC 189, Neeru Y Operative part of order dated 15.1 ndents No. 2 and 3 is reproduced “
  @   !     "  !   ! 
) '    )  -  " " ;5.6+ "5-44.6-&346AB blished by a line of precedents is tha not to be withdrawn unless there i il order can be set aside even in th is found to be unjustified, illegal o material factors (Puran Vs. Rambila dra K. Amin Vs. State of Gujrat an umar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterje d Others Vs. Ramprasad Viswanath eru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014)1 15.10.2025 granting anticipatory bai uced hereinunder for the facility o @     $ %  (   0  )  !) !  "   '      (   ?)"  -3-  + is that here is in the egal or bilas t and terjee anath 14)16 ry bail ility of (   )    " KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document  %-%-./0   No the Mediator ap anticipatory ba During the hea complainant ha W settlement, the respondents No compromise. In Online SC 123 “T gr wi ca /01-..234%5   "  "   * )   ! !!  !              C#)  )     "    ) 8"$** No doubt, it is recorded in the ord ator appointed by the court the matter ory bail was allowed only on account he hearing of the petition for anticip ant had opposed the prayer for anticip When anticipatory bail was no t, there is no question of cancellat nts No.2 and 3 had resiled from the In Pritpal Singh Vs. State of B 123, Hon’ble Supreme Court held a “The Magistrate cancelled the ba ground that the terms of the com with. To say the least, the gro cancellation for bail was mad -  *   )  #             #  )       "    "    )< 
          )   39%5%6  %/%& ” the order that with the intervention o matter had been resolved, it is not tha ccount of the resolution of the dispute anticipatory bail also, counsel for th nticipatory bail.  as not allowed on the ground ncellation of bail on the ground tha m the settlement and were refusing to of Bihar and Another 2001 SCC held as follows: e bail to the appellant solely on th compromise had not been complie ground on which the petition fo made and was granted is wholl  -4-             %6  tion of that ispute. for the of nd that sing to SCC n the plied n for holly KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document  %-%-./0 un re in M co Th Sim Another 2001( aside the decisi that appellant h “7             /01-..234%5  untenable. It is in our view that t result in abuse of process of Cou in maintaining the order. There Magistrate cancelling the bail an confirming the said order are set The appeal is allowed.” Similarly, in Biman Chatterjee 001(1) RCR (Criminal) 973, Hon’b decision of High Court cancelling ba llant had violated the terms of the com “7. >)  >         ! ! (    !  ! !   ! !!   *         " !! > !  !    ! !)  - at the order if allowed to stand wi Court. The High Court clearly erre herefore, the order passed by th il and the order of the High Cour set aside. The bail order is restored rjee Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee an Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting ing bail of the appellant on the ground e compromise held as follows:       )  !        )  *          ! ! *  8!"    )     *    )           D  -5- d will erred y the Court red. and setting ground      *     "      "  KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document  %-%-./0    E         Th respondents No sake of discuss which is hereby Pe  ..)0)..2   /01-..234%5  !! @!!       !
) EEE###      !  ! !  ! !  0        )   #    )  )   !   Thus, there is no legal basis to ca No. 2 and 3 have violated terms of discussion, it is assumed to be so. T hereby dismissed.  Pending CRM(s), if any, are also d 3       Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable - ! ! (  ! !    (      )" )   )     )!       !      3&:          > !  ) B s to cancel the bail on the ground tha rms of the compromise, even if, for th so. There is no merit in the petition also disposed of accordingly.   (


  (    ed : Yes/No : Yes/No  -6-           !        nd that for the etition, (5 KAPIL 2026.04.23 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document