CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 $~83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010418672026 + CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27529/2026 GURSIMRANJEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Singh, Mr. Nitin Kala & Mr. Mohit Saini, Advs. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP. SI Karishma PS Dwarka-South. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 27530/2026 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 3. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) assails the order dated 24.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (RC), South - West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in SC No.446/2025 arising out of FIR No.103/2025, P.S. Dwarka South, whereby the anticipatory bail granted to the Petitioner vide order dated 04.04.2025 was cancelled and he was directed to surrender within four days. 4. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are that This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:42:34 CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 vide order dated 04.04.2025, the Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court. The said protection was expressly made subject, inter alia, to the conditions that the Petitioner “shall not threaten complainant or her family members” and that he “shall join the investigation as and when called by investigating agencies”. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by way of CRL.M.C. 2600/2025 seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR. 5. During the hearing of CRL.M.C. 2600/2025 on 14.07.2025, Respondent No. 2 informed this Court that she had received a threat call from the Petitioner on 22.05.2025, which she had recorded, and that a police complaint in that regard had been lodged on 04.06.2025. Taking note of the said allegation, this Court directed the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) to inquire into the complaint and file an updated status report specifically clarifying whether the complaint was found truthful or otherwise. It was further directed that, if the complaint was found truthful, the bail granted to the Petitioner be re-examined. 6. Pursuant thereto, the Investigating Agency obtained the Call Detail Records (‘CDRs’) of the relevant mobile number of the Petitioner for the period from 01.04.2025 to 15.07.2025. The CDR disclosed an outgoing call from the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 on 29.05.2025 at 15:58:07 hours, lasting 22 seconds. The recorded conversation and its transcription were also placed before the learned Sessions Court. The impugned order further records that when the Petitioner was questioned regarding the said call, he denied having called Respondent No. 2 and, instead, stated that Respondent No. 2 had called him. The CDR analysis, however, did not disclose any call from Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner during the relevant period. 7. Upon considering the CDR, the recorded conversation and its This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:42:34 CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 transcription, the complaint made by Respondent No. 2 and the interrogation material, the learned ASJ came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had breached the condition subject to which anticipatory bail had been granted and had misused the liberty extended to him. Consequently, vide the impugned order dated 24.08.2026, the anticipatory bail was cancelled and the Petitioner was directed to surrender within four days. The Petitioner thereafter sought further time to surrender, however, the said application was dismissed on 01.09.2026. It is undisputed before this Court that the Petitioner has not surrendered till date. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner admits before this Court that the Petitioner made the aforesaid call on 29.05.2025. Learned counsel, however, submits that the CDR reflects only a solitary call of about 22 seconds and that there was no subsequent communication whatsoever between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. Learned counsel submits that immediately prior to the said call, the Petitioner, had received calls from his senior officers concerning complaints allegedly made by Respondent No. 2 before his departmental authorities and, in the heat of the moment, he called Respondent No. 2 only to seek clarification and request her not to pursue complaints before different authorities. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner acknowledges that abusive language was used by the Petitioner during the conversation but submits that there was no intention to threaten or intimidate Respondent No. 2. It is urged that the Petitioner has otherwise complied with the conditions of bail, joined the investigation and has neither approached Respondent No. 2 nor contacted her thereafter. Reliance is also placed upon his age, employment with the Punjab Police and family circumstances, and it is submitted that cancellation of bail This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:42:34 CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 would have serious consequences for his service career. Learned counsel also refers to Abhimanue v. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal Nos.4197-4199 of 2025, in support of his submissions concerning cancellation of bail. 10. Per contra, the petition is opposed on behalf of the Respondents. It is submitted that the order granting anticipatory bail expressly restrained the Petitioner from threatening Respondent No. 2 or her family members and that the recorded conversation demonstrates a clear breach of the said condition. It is further submitted that the Petitioner initially denied having made the call, whereas the CDR established otherwise, and that before this Court the Petitioner now admits having called Respondent No. 2. 11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The transcription of the 22-second telephonic conversation, as placed before this Court, is reproduced below. The identifying particulars of Respondent No. 2 are being withheld: “Audio timing: 22 seconds Audio call recording date and time: 29.05.2025 at 3:57PM Complainant "D": हैलो Gursimranjeet Singh: हैलो Complainant "D": Š... Gursimranjeet Singh : तेरȣ मै मा चोद देनी है ठȤक है एक जगहा कट... टȣक के बैजा ठȤक है, िजथे Ǒदãलȣ चल रहा ओ रंडी रोना ओथे करजा मɇ वेãहा नी तेरे वांगु बहनचो कȧ इथे वी पोÛजावा ओथे वी पोÛजावा। Complainant "D" : Ɛा..... This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:42:34 CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 Gursimranjeet Singh: Ɛा.. मादरचोद अʬ सारी िजंदगी िबच आगी ͩकथो” 13. At the outset, the factum of the call is no longer in dispute. Though the allegation recorded before this Court on 14.07.2025 referred to a call dated 22.05.2025, the subsequent CDR disclosed the outgoing call from the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 on 29.05.2025 and, more importantly, the Petitioner now expressly admits having made the said call. The discrepancy in the date initially stated by Respondent No. 2, therefore, does not displace either the objective CDR material or the admission made by the Petitioner before this Court. 14. The principles governing cancellation of bail already granted are well settled. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted. It was held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are ordinarily necessary for cancellation and that interference or an attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, evasion or attempted evasion of the due course of justice, or abuse of the concession granted to an accused are amongst the recognised grounds for cancellation. At the same time, bail once granted cannot be cancelled mechanically and the Court is required to examine whether subsequent circumstances render it no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit the accused to continue to enjoy the concession of bail. 15. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this Court finds that the cancellation does not rest upon a bare or unverified allegation. The outgoing call is reflected in the CDR and is now admitted by the Petitioner himself. The question, therefore, is whether the contents and circumstances of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:42:34 CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 the admitted post-bail communication amount to breach of the condition imposed upon the Petitioner and misuse of the liberty granted to him. In the considered opinion of this Court, they do. 16. The condition imposed vide order dated 04.04.2025 was clear and unequivocal - the Petitioner was not to threaten the complainant or her family members. The condition was neither qualified nor made contingent upon repeated conduct. The submission that only one call was made and that it lasted merely 22 seconds, therefore, does not carry the matter any further. The number or duration of the calls cannot be determinative where the contents of the communication themselves constitute the conduct which the condition of bail was intended to prevent. A solitary act, depending upon its nature and gravity, may itself constitute misuse of the concession of bail. 17. The tenor and language of the conversation extracted hereinabove cannot, even prima facie, be characterised as a mere request for clarification. The conversation is plainly abusive, aggressive and intimidatory. 18. The explanation that the Petitioner had received calls from his senior officers immediately prior to calling Respondent No. 2 does not justify the course adopted by him. Even assuming that the complaints made before the departmental authorities caused anxiety or professional prejudice to the Petitioner, the remedy available to him was to proceed in accordance with law. Anger, provocation or apprehension of professional consequences could not justify directly confronting the complainant in a manner contrary to an express condition subject to which the Court had protected his liberty. 19. The change in the stand of the Petitioner is also a relevant circumstance. The impugned order records that when questioned during investigation, the Petitioner denied having made the call and asserted that it was Respondent This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:42:34 CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 No. 2 who had called him. The CDR did not support that assertion. Before this Court, the Petitioner has now admitted having made the call and seeks to explain the circumstances in which it was made. The explanation presently offered necessarily has to be considered in the backdrop of the stand earlier taken by him. 20. The Court has also considered the submission that there was no subsequent communication between the parties. While subsequent conduct may be relevant in assessing the overall circumstances, the absence of a further call cannot efface a breach which has already occurred. The condition imposed on 04.04.2025 did not require repeated or continuous threats before the Court could examine whether the liberty granted to the Petitioner had been misused. 21. Equally, the offer of the Petitioner to abide by further stringent conditions does not persuade this Court. The Petitioner was already subject to an express judicial restraint not to threaten Respondent No. 2 or her family members. An undertaking offered after breach of an existing condition cannot, by itself, render the breach inconsequential. The personal and professional circumstances of the Petitioner, including his employment and family responsibilities, have also been considered, however, such considerations cannot override conduct which constitutes misuse of the concession of bail. 22. The learned ASJ has considered the CDR, the recorded conversation and its transcription, the complaint of Respondent No. 2 and the interrogation material before arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioner had breached the condition of bail and misused the liberty granted to him. The conclusion is thus founded on material on record and cannot be said to be mechanical, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:42:34 CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 perverse or based merely upon an allegation made by Respondent No. 2. 23. The admitted post-bail conduct of the Petitioner, viewed in the light of the contents of the call and the express condition imposed upon him, constitutes abuse of the concession of bail within the principles recognised in Dolat Ram (supra). This Court, therefore, finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned order dated 24.08.2026 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.” 24. Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 6581/2026 is dismissed and the order dated 24.08.2026 passed by the learned ASJ, FTSC (RC), South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi is upheld. The Petitioner, who has admittedly not surrendered pursuant to the impugned order, shall surrender before the learned Trial Court forthwith. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 25. It is clarified that the observations herein are confined to the present petition and shall not affect the merits of FIR No. 103/2025, CRL.M.C. 2600/2025, or the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. 26. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/ys/m This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:42:34