IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.10.2025 State of Haryana ....Petitioner V/s Rohit ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent vide order dated 08.09.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by this Court in CRM-M- 36973-2021 in FIR No.38 dated 13.02.2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 307, 506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, Chandhut, Police Palwal Station District Palwal.

2. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court, reads as under:

“After hearing the counsel for the parties, considering the fact that the petitioner, who is a young man aged about 22 years, is a first offender, I deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days to join investigation and he shall be released on interim bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds subject to the following conditions:-

1. He shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

2. He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

3. He shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

It will be open for the Investigating Officer to issue an advance notice in writing to the petitioner to join the investigation, if so required.”

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-State has iterated that the respondent has misled this Court at the time of seeking anticipatory bail by giving incorrect facts. Learned counsel has further iterated that the investigating officer has visited the hospital on the same day of the incident to record the statement of the victim but the doctor declared him unfit. Later, the name of the respondent surfaced in the statements of the eyewitnesses on 13.02.2021 and in the statement of the victim Braham on 18.02.2021. According to learned State counsel, the respondent has deliberately misled this Court while seeking anticipatory bail by falsely claiming that he was named only after six days of the occurrence. Furthermore, the respondent has threatened the complainant to withdraw the cases and not to pursue the present FIR. It has been further contended that the respondent has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency and did not facilitate the recovery of the weapon (desi katta). Thus, it has been argued that the concession of anticipatory bail extended to the respondent vide impugned order deserves to be cancelled.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has iterated that the allegations made by the State are false, baseless and motivated. Learned counsel has further iterated that the respondent has not misled this Court at any stage and has strictly complied with all the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail on 08.09.2021. It is further contended that the respondent has been falsely implicated in the case due to personal enmity as his name was not mentioned in the initial version of the incident and was only introduced later which is an afterthought. According to learned counsel, the respondent has fully cooperated with the investigating agency and bail once granted cannot be cancelled unless there are cogent reasons. On the strength of these submissions, the dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court titled as Dinesh Madan vs. State of