Cancellation of anticipatory bail requires substantial grounds; mere non-compliance with settlement terms does not justify cancellation without evidence of misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

CRM-52161-2025:

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present application.

Permitted to do so.

Ordered accordingly.

Main case:

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is pari materia with Section 483 (3) of the BNSS seeking cancellation of benefit of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2/accused by this Court in CRM-M-31212-2024 vide order dated 20.02.2025 in case arising out of FIR No.17, dated 18.01.2024, registered under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC , at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present petitioner alleging that she owned and possessed some industrial property. A civil suit filed by her seeking claim for entering her name in the column of ownership and possession had been decreed in her favour. However, when she went for implementation of the Court order, she came to know that respondent No.2 in connivance with the co-accused had got registered sale deed qua the same property in the name of other co-accused, namely, Satya, Ram Chander, Shiv Kumar and Sita Ram by impersonating accused Satya as daughter of the complainant and impersonating other accused as her grandson though, they had no concern whatsoever with the petitioner. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Respondent No.2 filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. Thereafter, he filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail before this Court and he was directed to join investigation on 17.12.2024. A settlement took place between the parties and vide order dated 03.02.2025, order of interim bail as passed in favour of respondent No.2 was made absolute.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the anticipatory bail by this Court was granted to respondent No.2 solely based on the settlement/agreement dated 13.12.2024, which was arrived at before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. This settlement was reduced into writing. As per the terms of the settlement, respondent No.2 had to transfer back the disputed land in favour of the petitioner by 17.12.2024. However, till date he has not done so and thereby, he has violated the terms and conditions of the settlement. Since the bail order in his favour was on the basis of assurance given by respondent No.2, which has not been complied with by him, therefore, it is urged that the order of pre-arrest bail as passed by this Court in his favour is liable to be set aside.

4. The respondent/State has filed reply. It is submitted that the investigation in this case now stands concluded and challan has been presented.

5. Respondent No.2/accused has also filed reply. It is submitted that he had no intent not to comply with the terms of the settlement. He had even got prepared a sale deed by making payment of requisite stamp duty on 25.11.2024. Even appointment had been taken from the Tehsildar concerned for registration of the sale deed. However, since requisite permission for execution of sale deed from the Department of Town Planner and NOC from his office was required, therefore, he applied for the same. He had even filed an application before this Court for giving direction to the revenue officials to allow execution of the sale deed. However, since during pendency of that application, his bail order was made absolute, therefore, that application had been rendered infructuous. He is still ready and willing to execute