JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Court for Fast Tracking of Heinous Crimes against Women, Karnal in FIR No.248 dated 11.12.2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 328 (later on deleted) 376, 506 of IPC and Section 67-A of IT Act (added later on) at Police Station Women, Karnal.

2. The petitioner is a complainant in the case in question which has been registered, primarily, on the allegations of rape and criminal intimidation against the respondent No.2. Vide impugned order dated 03.02.2023, the regular bail was granted to respondent No.2; relevant whereof reads as under:

"7. After filing of this complaint, investigation was carried out. Counseling of the victim was conducted and her statement was also got recorded before the court u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The victim was also got medically examined. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused Subhash Saini was arrested on 16.12.2022 and his disclosure statement was recorded. A mobile phone was recovered from him. During investigation, the co-accused Anju Saini w/o petitioner-accused Subhash Saini was found innocent. Investigation in this case has already been completed and challan presented before the court.

The petitioner-accused is already in judicial custody since 16.12.2022. It is a matter of evidence to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner-accused Subhash Saini had actually raped the complainant repeatedly or the said relationship was consensual in nature. There is no justified apprehension that petitioner-accused may abscond or commit a similar offence if released on bail. The trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner-accused further in custody."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No.2 ought not to have been granted the concession of regular bail as the nature as also the severity of allegations raised against the respondent No.2 are serious in nature. Learned counsel has further argued that in view of the nature of allegations made against respondent No.2, the regular bail ought not to have been granted to respondent No.2. Thus, cancellation of the regular bail granted to respondent No.2 is sought for.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the challan (report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.) has been presented by the Police in the concerned Court on 10.01.2023. It has been further submitted by the learned State counsel that the police has not received any complaint, made by the petitioner, about the respondent No.2 having extended any threat etc. to the petitioner or having tried to influence witness(s), after being enlarged on regular bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has argued that respondent No.2 has been falsely implicated in the instant case. A false and fabricated story has been concocted by the petitioner just to harass the respondent No.2. Furthermore, after being extended the benefit of regular bail, respondent No.2 has been regularly appearing before the trial Court and has not misused the said concession. Moreover, it is trite law that cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection and the same cannot be cancelled unless any cogent reason for cancellation thereof is made out.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

7. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court titled as Dinesh Madan vs. State of Haryana and another passed in CRM-M-9029-2023, decided on 17.05.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:-

"12. The concept of "cancellation of bail" is statutorily manifested in terms of Section 439 (2) of 1973 Code. This concept was embodied in the earlier statu