REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-25787 of 2026(O&M) No.2, however, failed to abide by terms and conditions of the compromise. She neither filed the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, nor returned the gold articles to the petitioner, as agreed. Therefore, the order of anticipatory bail was liable to be cancelled. 3. FIR was registered on statement of the petitioner, who alleged that he was married to Rajanbir Kaur on 06.07.2025 as per Sikh rites and rituals. After some days, his wife started quarrelling with him and his family. On 08.11.2025, when he was away with his parents to Gurudwara Shri Fatehgarh Sahib for paying obeisance, his wife was alone at home. When they returned, she was found missing. She had taken all gold ornaments from the almirah weighing 6 tolas, apart from cash of Rs. 2 lacs, alongwith Karan son of her paternal aunt. 4. The principal of law well established by a line of precedents is that concession of liberty once granted is not to be withdrawn unless there is compelling justification there for. In Crl. Appeal No. 2381 of 2025, decided on 02.05.2025, titled Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and Another, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed this: “16. The jurisprudence surrounding cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC is very clear as to that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to enjoy the concession of bail during the trial. The grounds for cancellation of bail as illustrated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 and reiterated in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 4 SCC 272 broadly lay down the REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-25787 of 2026(O&M) grounds on which a bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vii) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It has also been echoed in various judgments that rejection of bail stands on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with the liberty of an individual, and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to.[(5) Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349)]” 5. In Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another 2001 SCC Online SC 123, while dealing with the prayer for cancellation of bail for not adhering to the terms of compromise, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “The Magistrate cancelled the bail to the appellant solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for cancellation for bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It is in our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of process of Court. The High Court clearly erred in maintaining the order. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail and the order of the High Court REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-25787 of 2026(O&M) confirming the said order are set aside. The bail order is restored. The appeal is allowed.” 6. Similarly, in Biman Chatterjee Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and Another 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 973, Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the decision of High Court cancelling bail of the appellant on the ground that appellant had violated the terms of the compromise held as follows: “7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise. Though in the original order granting bail there is a reference to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of compromise through the media of well wishers, there is no submission made to the court that there will be a compromise or that the appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the appellant had failed to keep up his promise made to the court. Here we hasten to observe first of all from the material on record, we do not find that there was any compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence, question of fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not arise. That apart non- fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 5 CRM-M-25787 of 2026(O&M) said Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law.” 7. Record of the case shows that during the course of arguments in the application for anticipatory bail filed by respondent No.2, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre of the Court. A compromise was effected and the prayer for anticipatory bail was allowed. Operative part of the order dated 29.01.2026 granting anticipatory bail is reproduced below: ‘5. During the course of arguments, complainant Hardeep Singh son of Avtar Singh has appeared and the matter was sent to the Mediation Centre where matter has been settled between the parties. He also made statement hat he has no objection, if the present bail application is allowed as he has compromised the matter with the accused. Keeping in view the statement of the complainant and that compromise between the parties has already been arrived at, bail application of applicant Rajanbir Kaur for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. She is directed to join the investigation and in the event of her arrest, she is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:- A. That accused-applicant will not hamper the trial; B. That accused-applicant will not try to prevail upon the witnesses; C. That accused-applicant will appear in the Court on each and every date; REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 6 CRM-M-25787 of 2026(O&M) D. That accused-applicant will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 6. This order of mine be not construed as expression on merits of the case.’ 8. The compromise arrived at between the parties is on record as Annexure P-2. Relevant portion of which reads as below: ‘4. That both the parties referred above voluntarily agreed to resolve their dispute on the following terms and conditions: 1. That the party no.2 Sh. Hardeep Singh has compromised the matter with the party no.1. Both the parties have compromised that they will reside separately and they will file joint petition for divorce under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act in the concerned family court Amloh. The party no. 1 ie. Rajanbir Kaur agreed to return one Gold Necklace set, two gold rings, one pair of gold tops, two gold Bengals to party no. 2 Hardeep Singh. The party no. 2 i.e Hardeep Singh will return one gold earrings, three gold rings, one Almira of wooden (having one pair of Silver Panjebs and one silver necklace set along with foot wears and cloths belongings of the party no. 1 and the party no. I have keys of the same in her hands), one sofa set seven sitters along with wooden table, double wooden bed along with matris, one refrigerator of L.G Company, LG 9kg top load washing machine, and other small dowry articles. Both the parties shall return the above said articles to each other by identifying them in the presence of common mans and issue receipts with regard to returning of the above said articles. The party no.2 have also compromised the matter with the party no. I for a lump-sum amount of Rs. REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 7 CRM-M-25787 of 2026(O&M) 2.50,000/- with party no.1 i.e. namely Rajanbir Kaur for past, present and future maintenance which also includes the amount of remaining dowry articles. Out of above said settled amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- the Party no.2 will pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- in cash or in the shape of demand draft at the time of first statement in the petition for divorce u/s 13-B and remaining amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-shall be paid at the time of second motion statement in the concerned Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court in petition going to file under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. 11. That the party no.1 will file quashing/cancellation petition in the concerned court or Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana, High Court, Chandigarh for quashing the above said FIR No. 0324, u/s 305 (a), 351 (2) of BNS 2023, PS Gobindgarh Mandi and the party no.2 i.e. Hardeep Singh will give statement for quashing the above said FIR whenever required by the court as per the compromise or and will file application for allowing the quashing Petition or will give statement before the concerned court for cancellation of the above said FIR. III. That the party no.1 and the party no.2 will not file any civil or criminal or any other proceedings in any court of law against each other regarding the present dispute as the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. Both the parties also compromised/settled that they will withdraw their cases if filed against each other from the concerned Court. In lieu of the above said compromise the party no.2 has no objection if the present application filed by the party no.1 is allowed. REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 8 CRM-M-25787 of 2026(O&M) 9. From the settlement/agreement reproduced above, it comes out that the compromise placed corresponding obligations on both the parties to return gold articles etc. Petitioner too was required to return gold jewellery and dowry articles, to respondent No.2. He had further agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. There is not a whisper in the petition filed that terms and conditions of compromise were honoured by the petitioner. As per settled principles discussed hereinabove concession of anticipatory bail once granted, cannot be cancelled on the ground that respondent No.2 has violated the terms of compromise, even if, for the sake of discussion, it is assumed to be so. There is no merit in the petition, which stands dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 14.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.15 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh