IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10416-2025 DECIDED ON:27.02.2025 SANJEEV .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Pinki Mehla, Advocate 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 respondent no.2 granted by this Hon’ble High Court, vide its order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-11) in FIR No.583, dated 14.10.2021, under Sections 120-B, 302,3017,324,449,326,201 of IPC at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner–complainant has contended that true facts of the case have not been putforth before this court wherein it is not only a case of double murder but a clear case of recovery also. He further contends that the co-accused namely Ismile Ali @Raju had murdered Geeta and her minor daughter Smriti in a barbaric manner and also gave serious injuries to Saksham, stole two mobile phones which got recovered from respondent no.2-accused namely Darshan Singh. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the motive of respondent no.2 stands clear wherein he wants to grab the land of the deceased for which he hired his servant (co- accused Ismile Ali @Raju) to kill the mother and sister of minor Saksham and also paid him Rs.30,000/-.

3. 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 respondent nor opposed the prayer.

4. Heard counsel for the respective parties.

5. Before considering the contentions raised in this petition, certain principles, which govern the grant of bail, are required to be noticed. 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.”

6. Proceeding ahead, there can be no doubt that all the aforesaid factors are required to be taken into consideration while granting 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 can be revoked by the superior court, if the court granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vipan Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab 2021 SCC OnLine SC 854.

7. In State Through Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi, 1978 AIR 961, it has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that:

“Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial.”

8. 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