IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8119-2025 DECIDED ON: 13.02.2025 KAMLESH AHLAWAT .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harjit Yadav, Mr. Sauhard Singh, Advocates, Mr. Arjun Singh and Ms. Supriya Arora, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is seeking the intervention of this Court under Section 483(3) of BNSS for cancellation of bail of respondents granted by learned Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide its order dated 19.12.2024 in FIR No.484, dated 01.11.2024, under Sections 115, 3(5), 333, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.

2. The respondents have applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions and the same was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-2).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner–complainant has contended that respondents after securing the bail from the Court after one month came to the society of the complainant and while she was taking a walk in the park respondent No.2 namely Divya Nehra came with her brother respondent No.3-Arun Nehra and started abusing the complainant and had beaten her mercilessly. Pursuant to which she suffered serious injuries as the complainant is an old lady of more than 65 years. Indeed, it is pertinent to mention here that even before the instant FIR a similar occurrence had taken place on 23.07.2023 wherein the complainant had filed a complaint at Police Chaunki Amravati Enclave, Panchkula against respondent No.3 wherein he made phone calls on the phone of the petitioner and hurled derogatory abuses.

4. Learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice has neither supported the case of the petitioner so as to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents nor opposed the prayer.

5. Heard counsel for the respective parties.

6. Before considering the contentions raised in this petition, certain principles, which govern the grant of anticipatory bail, are required to be noticed. In Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 Hon’ble Supreme Court has enunciated the considerations that must govern the grant of anticipatory by holding as under: -

92.3…While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc.

92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.”

7. Similarly, in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP & Anr., (2016) 15 SCC 422, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: -

“11. It is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are, (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.”

8. Proceeding ahead, there can be no doubt that all the aforesaid factors are required to be taken into consideration while granting anticipatory bail to an accused, but it is a well-established principle that once bail has been granted, it would require cogent and overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. At the same time, equally important is to note that bail