IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.12.2025 ALISHA …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. K.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate for Ms. Deerja, Advocate as Legal Aid counsel and Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate (through V.C.)

for respondent No. 2.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

Petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. 1973 seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail allowed to respondent No. 2 by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2023 in CRM-M-6899-2023 in FIR No. 64 dated 29.12.2022 under Sections 406/498-A Indian Penal Code, Police Station Women District Amritsar Commissionerate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that concession of anticipatory bail was granted to respondent No. 2 on 03.08.2023 on account of a settlement reached between the parties in the Mediation Centre. Respondent No. 2, however, violated terms No. 1, 2 and 3 of the settlement and had thrown out the petitioner from the matrimonial home after giving her severe beatings. Since then, she was living on the mercy of her parents. Respondent No. 2 had abused the process of law. He settled the matter in the Mediation Centre only to take benefit from the Court and had violated the terms and conditions of the order. Therefore, order dated 03.08.2023 granting anticipatory bail deserved to be set aside.

Ms. Deerja, who was appearing as Legal Aid Counsel is discharged as respondent No. 2 has engaged private counsel.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand submits that there was nothing in the order dated 03.08.2023 to suggest that concession of anticipatory bail was allowed on the basis of compromise reached in the Mediation Centre. He further submits that grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail were limited and bail once granted could not be cancelled unless there were compelling reasons and justification there for.

In Crl. Appeal No. 2381 of 2025, decided on 02.05.2025, titled Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and Another, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows “16. The jurisprudence surrounding cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC is very clear as to that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to enjoy the concession of bail during the trial. The grounds for cancellation of bail as illustrated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 and reiterated in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 4 SCC 272 broadly lay down the grounds on which a bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vii) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It has also been echoed in various judgments that rejection of bail stands on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with the liberty of an individual, and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to.[(5) Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349)]”

The principal of law well established by a line of precedents is that concession of liberty once granted is not to be withdrawn unless there is compelling justification there for.

It is also settled that a bail order can be set aside even in the absence of post bail misconduct, if it is found to be unjustified,