IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 FIZA ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Farukh Abdullah, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS read with Section 528 of BNSS has been filed seeking cancellation of bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh to respondents No.2 to 5 in case FIR No.187 dated 21.08.2025 under Sections 115, 351(3), 75(2), 77, 78, 85 & 92 of BNS, registered at Police Station Pinangwan, District Nuh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents No.2 to 5 have made unlawful demands of dowry from the petitioner and subjected her to harassment. It is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Punhana granted bail to respondent No.2 on 10.11.2025; whereas learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh granted bail to respondents No. 3 to 5 on 19.11.2025, subject to the condition that they shall join and cooperate with the Investigating/Arresting Officer and comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. It is further submitted that after securing bail, respondents No. 2 to 5 threatened the petitioner and her family of dire consequences, in case they seek to recover the dowry articles and case amount, thereby violating the conditions of bail. He, therefore, submits that the bail granted to private respondents deserves to be cancelled.

3. The learned State counsel submits that learned trial Court after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced, granted bail to respondents No.2 to 5. The investigation in the instant case was carried out in a thorough and non-partitioned way, without any influence or interference. With respect to the alleged threats, it is submitted that the claims of the petitioner has not been corroborated.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record with their able assistance.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that it was only after hearing the all the parties, respondents No.2 to 5 were granted the concession of bail. With respect to the alleged threats made by the respondents No.2 to 5, no material has been placed on record to substantiate this contention.

6. As per the settled proposition of law, once bail has been granted, it would require cogent and overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. The order granting bail can only be revoked by the Superior Court while granting the said concession ignored the relevant material available on record, as has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vipin Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC Online SSC 854.

7. In Ms. X vs The State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349)]

observed that:

“Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. (Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying