Bail cannot be denied on account of recovery of money, and custodial interrogation cannot be utilized to recover the money. The parameters for cancellation of bail, as established by the Supreme Court, must be carefully considered, and cancellation of bail is a harsh order that must not be lightly resorted to.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral) - This is a petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 and 3 in case bearing FIR No.1190 dated 29.12.2021, registered under Sections 379 and 406 of IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC were added later on).

2. While granting anticipatory bail, the trial Court observed as under:-

"xx xx xx

7. It is not a disputed fact that earlier, the FIR was registered against the applicants-accused under Sections 379 and 406 IPC. It is also an admitted fact that both the applicants-accused were admitted to anticipatory bail vide orders dated 18.02.2022 and 25.03.2022 by the court of Shri G.S.Wadhwa, the then learned ASJ, Hisar. Subsequently, offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC were added in the FIR. In the FIR, the complainant has alleged that both the applicants-accused were his employees whereas in the bail application, it is the plea of the applicants- accused that they had jointly entered into a partnership with the complainant to run the colleges. From the overall perusal of the facts, it appears that dispute between both the parties pertain to the settlement of accounts, which is further evident from the status report filed by the police as per which, the applicants-accused have rendered the accounts of Rs.7,89,000/- and an amount of Rs.11 lacs is still to be recovered from them. It is also to be noted here that an FIR No.1015 dated 08.11.2021 under sections 294, 323, 342, 506, 34 IPC was also got registered by the applicant-accused Dinesh Kumar against the co- accused Rajpal Poonia and the present complainant Anil Taneja, with the allegations that they had abused him, caused injuries to him and also got his signatures upon some blank papers forcibly. 8. So far as plea of prosecution that custody of applicants is required to effect recovery of Rs.11 lacs, the same is without any force. In Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P.(Criminal appeal No.53 of 2021) (decided on 19.02.2021), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled by a plethora of decision of this court that the criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. It is further held that a criminal court exercising a jurisdiction to grant bail/ anticipatory bail is not excepted to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant and that too, without any trial."

3. The plea raise is that without considering the fact that the amount, the receipt books are yet to be recovered from the accused, concession of anticipatory bail has been granted.

4. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that so far as quantum of amount is concerned, even the complainant is not sure of the same.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties.

6. It is trite law that bail cannot be denied on account of recovery of money. Custodial interrogation cannot be utilized to recover the money.

7. Parameters with respect to cancellation of bail are no more res-integra and have been well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272. Para No.12 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :-

12. In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi, 1978 (2) SCC 411 : AIR 1978 Supreme Court 961 this Court observed rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of a bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case then to cancel a bail once granted. That is because cancellation of bail interferes with the liberty already secured by the accused either on the exercise of discretion by the court or by the thrust of law. This Court, therefore, observed that the power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. That does not mean that the power though extraordinary in character must not be exercised even if the ends of justice so demand."

8. Similarly the Supr