violated any condition, the opposite side could move for cancellation/recalling of the order. Learned counsel urges that respondent No.2 was continuously violating terms and conditions of the settlement agreement and was not bringing the children for visits to the petitioner. DDRs were lodged in concerned police station in this regard. Petitioner, who was the mother was not able to meet her children, causing grave mental stress and harassment. Thus, order of anticipatory bail in favour of respondent No.2 deserved to be cancelled.

In Crl. Appeal No. 2381 of 2025, decided on 02.05.2025, titled Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and Another, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“16. The jurisprudence surrounding cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC is very clear as to that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to enjoy the concession of bail during the trial. The grounds for cancellation of bail as illustrated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 and reiterated in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 4 SCC 272 broadly lay down the grounds on which a bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vii) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It has also been echoed in various judgments that rejection of bail stands on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with the liberty of an individual, and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to.[(5) Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349)]”

Perusal of order dated 13.09.2024 would reveal that on

24.01.2024, respondent No.2 was granted interim bail and at the same time, the matter was referred to mediation. Operative part of the order dated

13.09.2024 is reproduced as under:

‘3. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Sulakhan Singh, has informed that the petitioner has joined the investigation, in terms of the aforesaid order and his further custodial interrogation is not required.

4. As per the report of the learned Counsellor of this Court with regard to the visitation rights of the children, the parties have effected a compromise as an interim measure.

5. In view of the reasons recorded in the order dated 24.01.2024 and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation; his further custodial interrogation is not required by the Investigating Agency and the parties have effected a compromise, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the this Bench granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

6. However, it is made clear that nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

7. Liberty is reserved in favour of the State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of the order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C., or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.’

Even though it is recorded in the order granting anticipatory bail that the parties had entered into a compromise as an interim measure, it cannot be said that the relief of anticipatory bail was granted only on the ground of