The petitioner has filed the present petition for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 706 of 2026 titled Anita Nathta Vs. State of H.P., decided on 30.4.2026.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is the complainant in FIR No. 95 of 2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other relevant provisions. Rspondent No.2/accused had initially approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, for seeking pre-arrest bail. This application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, considering the seriousness of the allegations. Respondent No.2/accused approached this Court, and this Court granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent/accused in Cr.MP(M) No. 706 of 2026. The order has been passed without considering the gravity and the seriousness of the allegation, especially those pertaining to the misappropriation of public funds. The pre-arrest bail application of respondent No.2/accused had already been rejected by the learned Trial Court after due consideration, and this was not considered by this Court while granting bail. Respondent No.2/accused is likely to misuse the concession of pre-arrest bail. She is attempting to influence witnesses and interfere with the investigation. Her custodial interrogation is necessary for proper investigation and recovery of misappropriated funds. The signatures of the accused can only be obtained under Section 311A of Cr.PC only if the person is in custody. The State had failed to disclose the requirement of obtaining the specimen signatures; hence, the present petition.

3. I have heard M/s Kritika Rajta and Ruchika Khachi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State.

4. Ms. Ruchika Khachi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2/accused had applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and her application was rejected. This Court had granted bail without considering the seriousness of the offence. The custody of respondent No.2/accused is required for obtaining her signature, as the signatures cannot be obtained under Section 311A without arresting the accused. The petitioner is influencing the witnesses; therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2/accused be cancelled.

5. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State submitted that an appropriate order may be passed in the present petition.

6. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 that the bail, once granted, should not be cancelled mechanically; however, an unreasoned and perverse order is open to interference by the Superior Court. The bail can be cancelled if there are serious allegations against the accused. It was observed at page 783:

“7. It is equally well settled that bail, once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse bail order is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on society, resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order grant