CRM-M-39826-2026 and one more case (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 103 1. CRM-M-39826-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 MANOJ GULATI ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents 2. CRM-M-39843-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 MANOJ GULATI ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. Balraj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Two petitions under Section 483(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seek cancellation of anticipatory bail allowed to respondent(s) No. 2-Ajay Maini and Vanshaj Maini, vide interim order(s) dated 13.04.2026 and final order(s) dated 29.05.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in FIR No. 68 dated 24.03.2026 under Sections 406, 420 Indian AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.22 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39826-2026 and one more case (O&M) -2- Penal Code, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Ballabgarh. Common question of law and facts being involved, both petitions shall be determined by a single order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that respondent(s) No. 2 in both petitions filed separate applications for anticipatory bail(s) and vide order(s) dated 13.04.2026, interim bail was granted to respondent(s) No. 2, directing them to join investigation and co-operate. Investigating Officer repeatedly called upon the respondent(s) No. 2 to produce agreements, payment records and other financial documents but respondent(s) No. 2 failed to comply. They did not facilitate recovery of the outstanding amount. Yet, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order(s) dated 29.05.2026, made the interim bail(s) absolute. The order(s) granting anticipatory bail(s) were liable to be cancelled as respondent(s) No. 2 did not co-operate in the investigation, failed to provide required documents and to get the recovery of money effected. Moreover, respondent(s) No. 2 were facing multiple civil and criminal cases, which circumstance was also ignored by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, order(s) dated 13.04.2026 and 29.05.2026 deserve to be quashed/set aside. 3. The FIR was registered on complaint of petitioner who stated that he was the Director of M/s. Balaji Industrial Manpower Pvt. Ltd. and engaged in supplying skilled and unskilled manpower to industrial establishments. Respondent(s) No. 2- Ajay Maini and Vanshaj Maini on behalf of M/s. Maini Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Maini Scaffold Systems Rudrapur Uttrakhand, approached petitioner for supply of manpower, assuring timely payment of labour charges, wages, ESI, PF and GST. Acting on the AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.22 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39826-2026 and one more case (O&M) -3- representation, petitioner supplied manpower to respondent(s) No. 2 establishment, who deliberately failed to clear outstanding dues of ₹58,00,000/-, thereby causing wrongful loss to the petitioner and hardship. They also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences whereupon FIR was lodged against them. 4. 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 has observed as follows “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 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 AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.22 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39826-2026 and one more case (O&M) -4- 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. Long before that, in Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1995(1) SCC349, the Apex Court held as under: “3. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record, of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.22 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39826-2026 and one more case (O&M) -5- any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 6. 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. 7. It is also settled that a bail order can be set aside even in the absence of post bail misconduct, if it is found to be unjustified, illegal or perverse, without application of mind to material factors (Puran Vs. Rambilas and Another (2001)6 SCC 338, Dr. Narendra K. Amin Vs. State of Gujrat and Another 2008(6) SCC 415, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee (2010)14 SCC, 496, Prakash Kadam and Others Vs. Ramprasad Viswanath Gupta and Another (2011)6 SCC 189, Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508). 8. Reasons recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad while granting concession of interim bail to respondent(s) No. 2-Ajay Maini and Vanshaj Maini are as under: “These facts prima facie discloses a civil dispute between the complainant and the accused. There are rival claims in respect to AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.22 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39826-2026 and one more case (O&M) -6- ₹ disputed amount of 58,00,000/-. The accused has claimed that the complainant and his company had supplied less manpower as compared to the supplied invoices. He has further claimed that the complainant and his company committed said fraud in collusion with his accountant Biman. He has further claimed that he had made payment to the complainant's company but they failed to deposit the PF and ESI contribution in ESIC department in respect to the supplied manpower. He has further claimed that he had requested the complainant and his company to provide the PF and ESI challans but they did not provide the same. These facts indicate a dispute of the rendition of accounts. A prima facie case under Section 406 of IPC is not made out against the accused. The present dispute between the complainant and the accused is based upon documentary evidence. Nothing has to be recovered from the accused. The criminal law cannot be used to recover a disputed amount of civil nature. In other words, custodial interrogation of the accused is not required to recover outstanding amount of 58,00,000/-. For that purpose, the complainant has to approach the Civil Court to avail his civil remedy. The accused's detention will not serve any purpose in present case. The police will not be deprived to investigate present case in an effective manner if the accused is admitted on interim anticipatory bail at this stage.” 9. The factum of 06 FIRs registered against respondent(s) No. 2 was noticed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, observing that one of the FIRs was quashed by this Court while in another, respondent(s) No. 2 were AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.22 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39826-2026 and one more case (O&M) -7- on anticipatory bail and in remaining cases, they were not arrested. After respondent(s) No. 2 joined investigation on two occasions, pursuant to order of the Court, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, noticed that the concession of anticipatory bail cannot be denied to the accused for failure to get recovered disputed amount and for that purpose, the complainant is required to approach the civil Court. Also, that detention of the accused would not serve any purpose as the case was based on documentary evidence, which can be easily collected by the Investigating Officer. Relying upon Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2) SCC 382, it was held that anticipatory bail could not be denied on account of registration of 05 other cases, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. From the facts which have emerged on record, it does not appear that discretion to grant bail has been wrongly or arbitrarily exercised by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, ignoring the nature of accusations. The observations recorded in the order(s) dated 13.04.2026 and 29.05.2026 are based on correct appreciation of facts and law, in the light of nature and substance of allegations against respondent(s) No. 2. Respondent(s) No. 2, pursuant to order(s) of interim bail, joined investigation and anticipatory bail could not be refused for the reason that recovery of ₹58,00,000/- was not made. Order(s) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, are detailed, well reasoned and reflect due application of judicial mind. Judicial discretion has been rightly exercised and there are no compelling reasons for cancellation of bail of respondent(s) No. 2, particularly when the investigating agency is not aggrieved with the grant of bail. It is not the case of the petitioner(s) that AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.22 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39826-2026 and one more case (O&M) -8- respondent(s) No. 2 have violated the terms of the bail(s), misused the concession or interferred with investigation. 11. The petition(s) which have no merit, stand dismissed. 12. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion on merits of the case. 13. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly 14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JULY 21, 2026 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.22 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document