CRM-M-22737 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 206 Deepak Kumar State of Haryana Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. CRM-36715 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Rejoinder CRM-M-22737 1. BNSS, 2023, is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to r vide order dated 03.03.2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula in a case FIR No.08 dated 13.01.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023, at Police Station Sector 7, Panchkula. 2. registered on the complaint of entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 with Amit Mittal for himself and also as GPA of his wife alleged that Amit Mittal and Sector-25, Panchkula and they agreed to sell the same to the complainant vide 22737-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Deepak Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Karan Monga, Advocate, for respondent no.2. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 36715-2025 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Rejoinder to the reply of respondent no.2 is taken on record. 22737-2025 Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to r vide order dated 03.03.2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula in a case FIR No.08 dated 13.01.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023, at Police Station Sector 7, Panchkula. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR registered on the complaint of the petitioner, in which it was alleged that he had entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 with Amit Mittal for himself and also as GPA of his wife Shinu Mittal alleged that Amit Mittal and Shinu Mittal were the owners of House No.198, 25, Panchkula and they agreed to sell the same to the complainant vide - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22737-2025 (O&M) Decided on:11.09.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana. of respondent no.2 is taken on record. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 vide order dated 03.03.2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula in a case FIR No.08 dated 13.01.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023, at Police Station Sector 7, Panchkula. the facts of the case are that the FIR in question was , in which it was alleged that he had entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 with Amit Mittal for himself (respondent no.2 herein). It was Mittal were the owners of House No.198, 25, Panchkula and they agreed to sell the same to the complainant vide ...Petitioner ...Respondents Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483(3) of the espondent no.2 vide order dated 03.03.2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula in a case FIR No.08 dated 13.01.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023, at Police Station Sector 7, Panchkula. was , in which it was alleged that he had entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 with Amit Mittal for himself . It was Mittal were the owners of House No.198, 25, Panchkula and they agreed to sell the same to the complainant vide VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22737 agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 for a total sale consideration which included the mortgage amount of Union Bank of India, with which the house in question was mortgaged by both the accused. The agreement to sell dated 04.07.2025 was signed by Amit Mittal on behalf of himself and as GPA holder of his w registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula in presence of the witnesses. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs through two RTGSes of Rs.5 lacs each to the accused and it was agreed that crores from the complainant, the accused would hand over possession of the house in question to the complainant as part performance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores was to be paid by the complainant to the accused at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was also agreed that the accused would clear all the outstanding dues and loan etc. against the said house in question and g Dues Certificate property before execution and registration of the sale deed. In compliance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024, the complainant paid Rs.30 lacs through RTGS and Rs.1.35 crores through 4 R the accused, however, he came to know that approached the office of the Estate Officer, application for not granting permission to sell/transfer the house in question favour of anybody. The after having received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores and, thereafter, in a well hatched conspiracy, deed, whereas the complain registered by paying outstanding amount of sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores. Hence, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced 22737-2025 (O&M) agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 for a total sale consideration which included the mortgage amount of Union Bank of India, with which the house in question was mortgaged by both the accused. The agreement to sell dated 04.07.2025 was signed by Amit Mittal on behalf of himself and as GPA holder of his wife Shinu Mittal. The GPA dated 19.06.2024 was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula in presence of the witnesses. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs through two RTGSes of Rs.5 lacs each to the accused and it was agreed that crores from the complainant, the accused would hand over possession of the house in question to the complainant as part performance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores was to be paid by the complainant to the accused at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was also agreed that the accused would clear all the outstanding dues and loan etc. against the said house in question and g Dues Certificate and permission to sell from the HSVP, Panchkula against this property before execution and registration of the sale deed. In compliance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024, the complainant paid Rs.30 lacs through RTGS and Rs.1.35 crores through 4 R the accused, however, he came to know that approached the office of the Estate Officer, application for not granting permission to sell/transfer the house in question favour of anybody. The mala fide intention of after having received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores and, thereafter, in a well hatched conspiracy, respondent no.2 backed out from execution of the sale deed, whereas the complainant was ready to get the sale deed executed and registered by paying outstanding amount of sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores. Hence, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced - 2 - agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3 crores, which included the mortgage amount of Union Bank of India, with which the house in question was mortgaged by both the accused. The agreement to sell dated 04.07.2025 was signed by Amit Mittal on behalf of himself and as GPA Mittal. The GPA dated 19.06.2024 was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula in presence of the witnesses. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs through two RTGSes of Rs.5 lacs each to the accused and it was agreed that after receipt of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the accused would hand over possession of the house in question to the complainant as part performance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores was to be paid by the complainant to the accused at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was also agreed that the accused would clear all the outstanding dues and loan etc. against the said house in question and get No and permission to sell from the HSVP, Panchkula against this property before execution and registration of the sale deed. In compliance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024, the complainant paid Rs.30 lacs through RTGS and Rs.1.35 crores through 4 RTGSes, all dated 25.07.2024 to the accused, however, he came to know that respondent no.2 Shinu Mittal had approached the office of the Estate Officer, HSVP, Panchkula, with an application for not granting permission to sell/transfer the house in question intention of respondent no.2 was surfaced after having received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores and, thereafter, in a well backed out from execution of the sale ant was ready to get the sale deed executed and registered by paying outstanding amount of sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores. Hence, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, of Rs.3 crores, which included the mortgage amount of Union Bank of India, with which the house in question was mortgaged by both the accused. The agreement to sell dated 04.07.2025 was signed by Amit Mittal on behalf of himself and as GPA Mittal. The GPA dated 19.06.2024 was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula in presence of the witnesses. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs through two RTGSes of after receipt of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the accused would hand over possession of the house in question to the complainant as part performance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores was to be paid by the complainant to the accused at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was also agreed that the accused would clear all t No and permission to sell from the HSVP, Panchkula against this property before execution and registration of the sale deed. In compliance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024, the complainant paid Rs.30 lacs TGSes, all dated 25.07.2024 to Mittal had Panchkula, with an application for not granting permission to sell/transfer the house in question in was surfaced after having received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores and, thereafter, in a well backed out from execution of the sale ant was ready to get the sale deed executed and registered by paying outstanding amount of sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores. Hence, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. Apprehending arrest, VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22737 respondent no.2 Panchkula, for grant of concession of anticipatory bail vide its order dated 03.03.2025. petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2. 3. respondent no.2 and her husband are joint owners of the property in dispute, regarding which husband of respondent no.2 had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner. It is submi General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband regarding her share in the property in dispute and, thus, it is her husband who had entered into an agreement to sell on his behalf and respondent no.2. He submits that the property in dispute had a bank loan of Rs.4,11,96,193/ Rs.1,75,00,000/ execution of the agreement to sel been executed, respondent no.2, in a clandestine manner, had filed an application before the Estate Officer, HSVP, Panchkula, praying for not to grant permission for transfer of the property in favour of the pet submitted that the said application by respondent no.2 has only been filed in order to frustrate execution of the sale deed and to usurp the amount already paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent no.2, in connivance her co-accused, has dishonestly and deliberately cheated and defrauded the petitioner. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula had failed to appreciate the same that there was a respondent no.2 and, thus, has 22737-2025 (O&M) respondent no.2 approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, for grant of concession of anticipatory bail vide its order dated 03.03.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent no.2 and her husband are joint owners of the property in dispute, regarding which husband of respondent no.2 had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent no.2 had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband regarding her share in the property in dispute and, thus, it is her husband who had entered into an agreement to sell on his behalf and as GPA respondent no.2. He submits that the property in dispute had a bank loan of ,193/- and the petitioner had paid the earnest money of Rs.1,75,00,000/- in addition to the outstanding bank loan at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. However, before the sale deed could have been executed, respondent no.2, in a clandestine manner, had filed an application before the Estate Officer, HSVP, Panchkula, praying for not to grant permission for transfer of the property in favour of the pet submitted that the said application by respondent no.2 has only been filed in order to frustrate execution of the sale deed and to usurp the amount already paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent no.2, in connivance accused, has dishonestly and deliberately cheated and defrauded the petitioner. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula had failed to appreciate the same that there was a respondent no.2 and, thus, has illegally granted anticipatory bail to respondent - 3 - approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, which has been allowed Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent no.2 and her husband are joint owners of the property in dispute, regarding which husband of respondent no.2 had entered into an agreement to tted that respondent no.2 had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband regarding her share in the property in dispute and, thus, it is her husband who had entered into an as GPA on behalf of his wife, i.e. respondent no.2. He submits that the property in dispute had a bank loan of and the petitioner had paid the earnest money of in addition to the outstanding bank loan at the time of l. However, before the sale deed could have been executed, respondent no.2, in a clandestine manner, had filed an application before the Estate Officer, HSVP, Panchkula, praying for not to grant permission for transfer of the property in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the said application by respondent no.2 has only been filed in order to frustrate execution of the sale deed and to usurp the amount already paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent no.2, in connivance with accused, has dishonestly and deliberately cheated and defrauded the petitioner. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula had failed to appreciate the same that there was a mens rea on the part of illegally granted anticipatory bail to respondent approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, , which has been allowed Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the for Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent no.2 and her husband are joint owners of the property in dispute, regarding which husband of respondent no.2 had entered into an agreement to tted that respondent no.2 had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband regarding her share in the property in dispute and, thus, it is her husband who had entered into an , i.e. respondent no.2. He submits that the property in dispute had a bank loan of and the petitioner had paid the earnest money of in addition to the outstanding bank loan at the time of l. However, before the sale deed could have been executed, respondent no.2, in a clandestine manner, had filed an application before the Estate Officer, HSVP, Panchkula, praying for not to itioner. It is submitted that the said application by respondent no.2 has only been filed in order to frustrate execution of the sale deed and to usurp the amount already with accused, has dishonestly and deliberately cheated and defrauded the petitioner. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula on the part of illegally granted anticipatory bail to respondent VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22737 no.2 only on the ground that she was not a signatory to the agreement to sell, however, in actual, her husband signed it on behalf of himself and also on behalf of respondent no.2 being her GPA holder. 4. submitted that respondent no.2 has a dispute with her husband and her husband tried to misuse the GPA dated 19.06.2024 which was given to him only for the purpose of management of the properties submits that the agreement to sell, as alleged, is a fake document and has only been forged and fabricated to defeat the rights of respondent no.2 and, thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, has rightly gr of anticipatory bail to her as the dispute, if any, involved between the parties was of civil nature. 5. raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for cancellati anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2. committed by judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Waseem and another, present petition deserves to be allowed. 6. available record, it is deciphered that the crores and also of the loan amount which he had allegedly deposited account of the accused respondent no.2 in collusion with other co executed and registered GPA dat Mittal for the purpose of sale/transfer etc. of the house in question and when her husband Am 04.07.2024 to sell the said house on behalf of himself and also 22737-2025 (O&M) only on the ground that she was not a signatory to the agreement to sell, however, in actual, her husband signed it on behalf of himself and also on behalf of respondent no.2 being her GPA holder. On the other hand, learned counsel for submitted that respondent no.2 has a dispute with her husband and her husband tried to misuse the GPA dated 19.06.2024 which was given to him only for the purpose of management of the properties and not for sale etc. He further submits that the agreement to sell, as alleged, is a fake document and has only been forged and fabricated to defeat the rights of respondent no.2 and, thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, has rightly gr of anticipatory bail to her as the dispute, if any, involved between the parties was of civil nature. However, learned State counsel has raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for cancellati anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2. committed by respondent no.2 are serious in nature and has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Waseem and another, 2024(3) RCR (Crl.) 185 and, thus, submitted that the present petition deserves to be allowed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that the petitioner also of the loan amount which he had allegedly deposited account of the accused, in a well planned manner by hatching a conspiracy respondent no.2 in collusion with other co-accused. executed and registered GPA dated 19.06.2024 in favour of h Mittal for the purpose of sale/transfer etc. of the house in question and when her husband Amit Mittal had entered into the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 to sell the said house on behalf of himself and also - 4 - only on the ground that she was not a signatory to the agreement to sell, however, in actual, her husband signed it on behalf of himself and also on behalf of respondent no.2 being her GPA holder. learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that respondent no.2 has a dispute with her husband and her husband tried to misuse the GPA dated 19.06.2024 which was given to him only for the and not for sale etc. He further submits that the agreement to sell, as alleged, is a fake document and has only been forged and fabricated to defeat the rights of respondent no.2 and, thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, has rightly granted concession of anticipatory bail to her as the dispute, if any, involved between the parties earned State counsel has supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2. He submitted that the offences are serious in nature and has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajwar vs. 024(3) RCR (Crl.) 185 and, thus, submitted that the After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the petitioner has been cheated of Rs.1.75 also of the loan amount which he had allegedly deposited in the loan in a well planned manner by hatching a conspiracy accused. Respondent no.2 initially ed 19.06.2024 in favour of her husband Amit Mittal for the purpose of sale/transfer etc. of the house in question and when t Mittal had entered into the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 to sell the said house on behalf of himself and also as GPA of only on the ground that she was not a signatory to the agreement to sell, however, in actual, her husband signed it on behalf of himself and also on respondent no.2 has submitted that respondent no.2 has a dispute with her husband and her husband tried to misuse the GPA dated 19.06.2024 which was given to him only for the and not for sale etc. He further submits that the agreement to sell, as alleged, is a fake document and has only been forged and fabricated to defeat the rights of respondent no.2 and, thus, the anted concession of anticipatory bail to her as the dispute, if any, involved between the parties supported the arguments on of the He submitted that the offences are serious in nature and has relied upon the Ajwar vs. 024(3) RCR (Crl.) 185 and, thus, submitted that the After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the has been cheated of Rs.1.75 in the loan in a well planned manner by hatching a conspiracy by initially husband Amit Mittal for the purpose of sale/transfer etc. of the house in question and when t Mittal had entered into the agreement to sell dated as GPA of VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22737 respondent no.2 Rs.4,11,96,193/ while hatching conspiracy with with an ulterior motive cancelled and now she is taking the excuse that she had only executed the aforesaid GPA in favour of her husband only for management of her properties and not for sale/transfer etc. either of the parties had refused for performance of the agreement to sell but here is a case where the entire conspiracy has been hatched in a very planned manner while firstly executing the GPA to sell the house in questio on withdrawing the same in a very clever move in order to cheat the It has also come on record that possession of the house in question has also been delivered to the petitioner as part performance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 but despite that, in a very clandestine manner, respondent no.2 moved an application before the HSVP, Panchkula for not granting permission to transfer the property in favour of anybody only for the purpose of frustrating execution of sale deed in in view the gravity and seriousness of the offences, contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner 7. Rajasthan, 1985 AIR Supreme Court 969, while discussing the scope of of anticipatory bail Constitution Bench in Punjab, 1980(2) SCC 565 and held as under: 22737-2025 (O&M) respondent no.2 and also received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores Rs.4,11,96,193/- in their loan account from the while hatching conspiracy with the other co-accused with an ulterior motive to cheat the petitioner and now she is taking the excuse that she had only executed the aforesaid GPA in favour of her husband only for management of her properties and not for sale/transfer etc. The case would have either of the parties had refused for performance of the agreement to sell but here is a case where the entire conspiracy has been hatched in a very planned manner while firstly executing the GPA to sell the house in questio on withdrawing the same in a very clever move in order to cheat the It has also come on record that possession of the house in question has also been delivered to the petitioner as part performance of the agreement to sell .07.2024 but despite that, in a very clandestine manner, respondent no.2 moved an application before the HSVP, Panchkula for not granting permission to transfer the property in favour of anybody only for the purpose of frustrating execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner. in view the gravity and seriousness of the offences, contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 1985 AIR Supreme Court 969, while discussing the scope of anticipatory bail and regular bail, has relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of 1980(2) SCC 565 and held as under: “6. The decision of the Constitutional Bench in Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab 1980 Supreme Court 1632 clearly lays down that 'the distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory - 5 - and also received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores and from the petitioner, respondent no.2, accused, in a very clever move and petitioner, got the GPA dated 19.06.2024 and now she is taking the excuse that she had only executed the aforesaid GPA in favour of her husband only for management of her properties The case would have to be on different footings if either of the parties had refused for performance of the agreement to sell but here is a case where the entire conspiracy has been hatched in a very planned manner while firstly executing the GPA to sell the house in question and later on withdrawing the same in a very clever move in order to cheat the petitioner. It has also come on record that possession of the house in question has also been delivered to the petitioner as part performance of the agreement to sell .07.2024 but despite that, in a very clandestine manner, respondent no.2 moved an application before the HSVP, Panchkula for not granting permission to transfer the property in favour of anybody only for the purpose favour of the petitioner. Thus, keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offences, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. the case of Pakar Ram vs. State of 1985 AIR Supreme Court 969, while discussing the scope of grant , has relied upon the decision of the Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of 1980(2) SCC 565 and held as under:- The decision of the Constitutional Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1980(2) SCC 565, AIR clearly lays down that 'the distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory and respondent no.2, , in a very clever move and , got the GPA dated 19.06.2024 and now she is taking the excuse that she had only executed the aforesaid GPA in favour of her husband only for management of her properties to be on different footings if either of the parties had refused for performance of the agreement to sell but here is a case where the entire conspiracy has been hatched in a very planned n and later petitioner. It has also come on record that possession of the house in question has also been delivered to the petitioner as part performance of the agreement to sell .07.2024 but despite that, in a very clandestine manner, respondent no.2 moved an application before the HSVP, Panchkula for not granting permission to transfer the property in favour of anybody only for the purpose Thus, keeping force in the Pakar Ram vs. State of grant , has relied upon the decision of the Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. Vs. State of Shri Gurbaksh 1980(2) SCC 565, AIR clearly lays down that 'the distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22737 pre favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in Justice that 'in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed public or the State", are some of the considerations which the 22737-2025 (O&M) bail is that whereas the former is therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest.' Unlike a post pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, bail. Direction under Sec. 438 immunity from the touch as envisaged by confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, CJ clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest in the course of investigati Justice that 'in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by direction for the release of the appellant on bail in the event of his arrest' would generally be made. It was observed that 'it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond.' Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension. that witnesses will be tampered with a public or the State", are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.' caution was voiced that 'in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit - 6 - bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and fore means release from the custody of the police, the latter of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest.' Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in hich the direction is issued, he shall be released on is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by Sec. 46 (1) confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, CJ clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest in the course of investigation, Says the learned Chief Justice that 'in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the appellant on bail in the event of his arrest' would generally be made. It was observed that 'it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be ccusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond.' Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed riousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension. that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State", are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.' caution was voiced that 'in the evaluation of the cant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit granted after arrest and fore means release from the custody of the police, the latter of arrest and is therefore effective at the arrest order of bail, it is a arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in he shall be released on is intended to confer conditional or confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, CJ clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail on, Says the learned Chief Justice that 'in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to having him arrested, a direction for the release of the appellant on bail in the event of his arrest' would generally be made. It was observed that 'it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be ccusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond.' Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed riousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension. that nd "the larger interests of the public or the State", are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.' caution was voiced that 'in the evaluation of the cant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22737 from the course of justice, and more than there can be a presumption that the former are n 8. case of Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and another, SCC(Cri) 614, Sessions regarding bail, has 22737-2025 (O&M) themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, and more than there can be a presumption that the former are n the latter are more likely to commit it. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in another judgment rendered in the Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and another, SCC(Cri) 614, while discussing the powers o Sessions regarding bail, has held as under:- “10. Thus, Section 439 powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding bail. But, while the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witness the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal ca presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court m examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. While cancelling bail under Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due - 7 - themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, and more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it.” Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in another judgment rendered in the Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2013(4) while discussing the powers of High Court and Court of of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal ca presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. While cancelling bail under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, and more than there can be a ot likely to commit a crime and Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in another judgment rendered in the 2013(4) f High Court and Court of of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused es, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the ust not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22737 9. (supra) has been followed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. Etc. vs. State of Telangana & Anr., 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 540 can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice and if the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question 22737-2025 (O&M) course of justice or evade the that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes be ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this court are much wider, this court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail The aforesaid judgment rendered in has been followed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. Etc. vs. State of Telangana & Anr., 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 540 while holding that it is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice and if the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question - 8 - course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of f the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the per with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this court are much wider, this court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of llation of bail. The aforesaid judgment rendered in Kanwar Singh Meena’s case has been followed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. Etc. vs. State of Telangana & Anr., 2020(1) while holding that it is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice and if the court granting bail acie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question due course of justice. But, The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of f the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the per with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed cause they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this court are much wider, this court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of Kanwar Singh Meena’s case has been followed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. Etc. vs. State of Telangana & Anr., 2020(1) while holding that it is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice and if the court granting bail involvement of the accused or VINOD KUMAR takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question 2025.09.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22737 of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. 10. apparent that the complicity of established. The investigation is at its threshold respondent no.2 on 11. case discussed above 03.03.2025 passed by the learned Addition granting anticipatory bail to respondent no.2 is hereby set aside. 12. on the merits of the case. September 11, 2025 vinod* 22737-2025 (O&M) of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is apparent that the complicity of respondent no.2 established. The investigation is at its threshold respondent no.2 on anticipatory bail would scuttle the ongoing investigation. In view of overall attending facts and circumstances of the present discussed above, the present petition is hereby 03.03.2025 passed by the learned Addition granting anticipatory bail to respondent no.2 is hereby set aside. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 11, 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 9 - of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be he case on the anvil of the law settled, it is respondent no.2 has been prima facie established. The investigation is at its threshold and continued release of anticipatory bail would scuttle the ongoing investigation. facts and circumstances of the present , the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, granting anticipatory bail to respondent no.2 is hereby set aside. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be he case on the anvil of the law settled, it is prima facie and continued release of anticipatory bail would scuttle the ongoing investigation. facts and circumstances of the present allowed and the order dated al Sessions Judge, Panchkula, Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document