101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.10.2025 USHA …Petitioner V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. T.P.S. Bawa, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Amit Khatkar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral)

Petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no. 2 vide order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Court in CRA-S-289-2024, arising out of FIR No. 651 dated 09.12.2022, under Sections 376(2)(n) Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989, Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of hearing of application for anticipatory bail, respondent No. 2 had produced forged documents persuading the Court to grant relief. Thereafter, a separate complaint was filed by the petitioner with the police alleging forgery of documents by respondent No. 2. On the complaint, FIR was registered but later on, cancellation report was submitted in the Court in the said FIR on 23.10.2025. Learned counsel further submits that regarding the cancellation report and forgery of documents, he would avail his remedy separately. However, after grant of anticipatory bail, respondent No. 2 was extending threats to the petitioner and the anticipatory bail was liable to be cancelled on this ground alone.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that there was nothing on record to show that any threat was ever extended by respondent No. 2 and the petition ought to be dismissed.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2022) SCC Online 672, has laid down the law as to when bail, once granted, should be cancelled by the same Court or by the High Courts. It was observed thus:

“31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted).

32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:

(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice;

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice;

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner;

(iv) possibility of the accused absconding;

(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;

(vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.......”

The only ground on which cancellation of bail is sought, is that after getting relief of bail, respondent No. 2 openly threatened the petitioner and passed caste related remarks against her and her family members. It is not shown when and where the alleged threat was extended and what were the caste related remarks uttered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and her family members. On the basis of vague allegations, in the absence of material particulars of the alleged threats or remarks, no ground is made out to cancel bail of respondent No. 2. Consideration for grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on entirely different footing. Bald allegations of threat, un-substantiated by any material on record, are not sufficient to allow the petition. Thus, finding no merit the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

27.10.2025 JUDGE

Ajay Goswami