IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.08.2025 Khajan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Pankaj Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Dr. Rau PS Girwar, Advocate and Ms. Archana Arora, Advocate Ms. K.T. Rau, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. By filing the present petition, under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the complainant/petitioner seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to accused-respondent No.2 Jagjit Singh @ Sonu vide order dated 12.09.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran in case FIR No.252 dated 09.08.2023 under Sections 193, 34, 120-B, 201, 420, 468, 473 and 475 IPC, at Police Station City Tarn Taran.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the custodial interrogation of the accused-respondent No.2 is required to effect recovery of the alleged vehicle involved in the accident and documents of registration, etc., so as to unearth the crime committed by the accused persons in collusion with each other.

3. On the other hand, while defending the anticipatory bail order, learned counsel for the accused/respondent No.2 has submitted that the anticipatory bail was granted on 12.09.2023, i.e. about two years back and since then there is no default on the part of the accused. During the interregnum period, the prosecution agency, after completion of investigation submitted challan on 14.05.2024 and further cognizance was taken by the Trial Court and charges have been framed against the accused persons on 15.07.2024.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has further submitted that respondent No.2 had joined the investigation, cooperated with the prosecuting agency, and no condition imposed upon him vide the impugned order, was ever violated. Presently, the trial is in progress and the accused has been appearing on each and every date of hearing.

5. Arguments heard and paper-book perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is well-settled law that a bail, once granted by a competent Court, can be cancelled only in case of very strong and overwhelming circumstances, which in the present case, do not exist, particularly, in view of the facts, inter-alia, after the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused, he had joined investigation; after completion of investigation, the prosecuting agency filed final report under Section 173 CrPC before the Ilaqa Magistrate; charges have been framed against respondent No.2, and now the trial is in progress.

7. Neither any serious misconduct on the part of the accused is alleged after bail was granted to him, nor there is discovery of fresh evidence or material change in circumstances after passing of the impugned order.

8. Hence, finding no ground to interfere in the impugned order, the petition is dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

26.08.2025 JUDGE

D.Bansal