IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.02.2026 SHILPA RANI …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Manbir Singh Brar, Advocate and Mr. Annupinder Brar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

1. The petition under Section 483(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail allowed to respondent No. 2 by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 in FIR No. 07, dated 14.03.2024, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Women Cell, District Ferozepur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was married with respondent No. 2 on 13.12.2021. Respondent No. 2 and his family members victimized the petitioner and treated her with cruelty. Respondent No. 2 also misappropriated petitioner’s jewellery and i20 car. FIR No. 07, dated 14.03.2024, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Women Cell, District Ferozepur was registered against him and Gurbir Kaur. When his application for anticipatory bail was declined by learned Sessions Court, Ferozepur, he filed CRM-M-52451-2024 in this Court, wherein interim anticipatory bail was granted on 22.10.2024 and was made absolute on 03.03.2025 when State counsel did not dispute that respondent No. 2 joined investigation and got recovered i20 car and gold articles. It is claimed that respondent No. 4 ASI Darshan Singh, Investigating Officer of the case made a wrong statement before the Court to facilitate grant of anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2. Neither any gold jewellery was recovered from him, nor he co-operated during investigation. Even the i20 car was recovered from a third person and not from respondent No. 2. When petitioner approached the Investigating Officer for taking her gold jewellery and household articles, she was shocked to learn that nothing was recovered. Relying upon the false statement of respondent No. 4, anticipatory bail was wrongly granted to respondent No. 2. The gold jewellery was pledged by respondent No. 2 with a Finance company for gold loan, which he had taken back after closing the loan. In these circumstances, order granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 deserved to be cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that parameters for cancellation of bail once granted were entirely different from rejection of bail. Application for anticipatory bail moved by an accused person could not be used as recovery proceedings. He further submits that respondent No. 2 neither violated any condition of bail nor ever threatened the petitioner and was facing trial before the Court concerned. Therefore, his bail could not be cancelled.

4. 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 co