Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a complainant’s petition seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to an accused, holding that the seriousness of the allegations, by itself, cannot justify withdrawing anticipatory bail in the absence of clear material showing misuse of liberty or violation of bail conditions. The complainant alleged that the accused and others posed as Enforcement Directorate officers, threatened him with false implication in a tax case, and obtained ₹2.5 lakh as part of a larger demand. The Court noted there was no substantiated basis to infer interference with investigation or trial and found no case to cancel the bail protection.

The petitioner-complainant approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to an accused in an FIR registered for offences including cheating, house-trespass, extortion, forgery, impersonation, causing disappearance of evidence, criminal conspiracy, wrongful restraint, putting a person in fear of accusation, and common intention under the IPC. The FIR was based on a complaint that, on 29.03.2023, three persons came to the petitioner’s house in a Tata Harrier, posed as Enforcement Directorate officers, threatened false implication in a tax case, and demanded ₹5 lakh, of which ₹2.5 lakh was paid; verification later suggested no such ED raid had taken place.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Nullify Ongoing Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court

During investigation, a Special Investigation Team was constituted on 14.07.2023. The accused was granted interim anticipatory bail on 20.07.2023, joined investigation on 04.09.2023, and recoveries were taken into possession, including a mobile phone, photocopies of an ID card and documents; the police stated a fake ED ID card and stamp were destroyed and Section 201 IPC was added, with bail later made absolute on 20.09.2023.

The petitioner alleged that after obtaining bail, the accused pressured him to withdraw the case, visited his workplace with others, abused him, and issued threats, citing this as a breach of bail conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC. The State relied on an affidavit describing investigation steps, recoveries, and the accused’s role. The accused contended that the cancellation plea was based on vague allegations, that he complied with conditions, joined investigation, and cooperated with the investigating agency.

The Court referred to principles governing cancellation of bail and recorded that “The concept of ‘cancellation of bail’ is statutorily manifested in terms of Section 439(2) of 1973 Code.” It further recorded that “Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 deals with ‘any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter’ i.e. Chapter XXXIII of 1973 Code, which engirths in itself, Section 438 of the Code.”

The Court observed that “there is no conceptual difference between cancellation of regular bail and cancellation of anticipatory bail except that a Magistrate will not have statutory power to cancel an anticipatory bail granted by High Court or Sessions Court.”

While distinguishing between cancellation and setting aside of bail, it recorded that “There is a conceptual distinction, between ‘cancellation of bail’ and ‘setting-aside of a bail order’.” It further stated that “In a plea seeking ‘cancellation of bail’; such applicant ought to show, primarily, subsequent supervening circumstances such as accused having endeavored to influence/intimidate witness(s) or accused having violated bail condition(s).”

On facts, the Court recorded that “it is neither the stand of the State that the respondent No.2 have misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted by this Court by threatening/intimidating the witness(s) or by trying to influence the investigation/trial etc.” It noted that “no material has been placed on record to prima facie establish that respondent No.2 has influenced witnesses or obstructed the course of justice in the pending trial.”

The Court further observed that “seriousness of the offence, by itself, is not a ground seeking cancellation of bail, once the accused has been found entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail and has complied with the conditions imposed therein.” It concluded that “in the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing material showing violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty by respondent No.2, this Court does not find any justification to exercise the extraordinary power of cancellation of anticipatory bail.”

Also Read: Family Pension Cannot Be Deducted While Computing Loss Of Dependency In Motor Accident Claims: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Court held that “no case is made for cancellation of anticipatory bail.” It recorded that “the petition in hand deserves rejection. The present petition, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail passed by this Court, is dismissed.” The Court further clarified that “nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.” It also ordered that “Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mrs. Mahima Yashpal, Senior DAG Haryana; Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate

Case Title: Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and another

Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:013049

Case Number: CRM-M-39909-2025

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel