IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.12.2025 SAPINDER KAUR …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Harnoor Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

1. The petition under Section 483(3)/480(5) read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks cancellation of regular bail allowed to respondent No. 2, by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar (Mohali) vide order dated 08.08.2024 in FIR No. 36 dated 05.02.02019 under Sections 498-A, 406 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar Mohali. Order dated 24.10.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) has also been challenged.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of the petition are that respondent No. 2., accused in FIR No. 36 dated 05.02.02019 under Sections 498-A, 406 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar Mohali was allowed anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali)

vide order dated 22.02.2019 subject to following conditions:

i. that she shall not hinder the ongoing trial;

ii. that she shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court;

iii. that she shall not make any threat, promise or inducement to any person conversant with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing the truth to the court or police.

iv. that she shall not misuse the concession of bail failing which, the order shall stand vacated automatically.

3. An application for cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2 was moved before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar on 08.01.2024. Reply thereto was filed by respondent No. 2 on 10.05.2024. Vide order dated 18.07.2024, the bail order was cancelled by learned JMIC, SAS Nagar (Mohali) on account of violation of terms and conditions imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) inasmuch as respondent No. 2 left the country without prior permission of the Court.

4. Respondent No. 2 filed CRM-M-36389-2024 in this Court for quashing of order dated 18.07.2024 of learned JMIC, SAS Nagar(Mohali) which was dismissed as withdrawn with direction to appear before learned trial Court and move an application for regular bail. The trial Court was directed to dispose of the application for regular bail on the same day. Respondent No. 2 surrendered before learned trial Court and applied for regular bail, which was allowed vide order dated 08.08.2024.

5. CRM-M-51432-2024 was again filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail allowed to respondent No. 2 on 08.08.2024. Said petition was dismissed as withdrawn, whereafter, petition under Section 483(3) BNSS was filed before learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar(Mohali) for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar(Mohali) found no justifiable reason for cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2 and dismissed the application. Order dated 24.10.2025 is now assailed before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 08.08.2024 of learned JMIC, SAS Nagar(Mohali) allowing regular bail and order dated 24.10.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar(Mohali) were both perverse, based on flawed reasoning. Both the Courts observed that the accused/respondent No. 2 returned to India on her own, which was in fact a wrong observation. Referring to applications dated 14.11.2023, 05.12.2023 and 03.01.2024, Annexures P-3, P-5 and P-8 respectively, it was submitted that exemption from personal appearance of respondent No. 2 during trial was sought on account of medical complications arising due to knee replacement on 14.11.2023, due to health problems on 05.12.2023 and due to marriage of close relations on 03.01.2024, though in fact, respondent No. 2 was away to Canada to attend to her daughter and her new born baby as was evident from her reply dated 10.