Anticipatory bail secured through a compromise/undertaking is liable to be cancelled if the accused fails to adhere to the terms of the settlement, as such breaches constitute an abuse of judicial process and undermine the majesty of the law.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by this Court in FIR No.172 dated 08.10.2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 201 at Police Station city Nawanshahar, District SBS Nagar.

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

(4) Learned Counsel submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioner has already joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.

(5) Learned State Counsel, on instructions from ASI Harjinder Singh, submits that petitioner has joined investigation and as on today, his custodial interrogation is not required.

(6) Although learned Counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer; but keeping in view the fact that State does not require any custodial interrogation of petitioner, therefore, the objection in this regard is rejected.

(7) In view of above, interim order dated 19.06.2023 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(8) It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation.

(9) The above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the present bail matter.

(10) Disposed off accordingly.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the anticipatory bail has been granted to respondent No. 2 primarily on the basis of a compromise dated 04.10.2023 arrived at between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that as per the terms and conditions of the said compromise, respondent No. 2 has agreed to pay a total sum of ₹7,50,000/- to the petitioner within the stipulated period. According to learned counsel, after availing the concession of anticipatory bail, however, respondent No.2 has failed to honour the said compromise and has paid only a sum of ₹3,00,000/-, while the remaining amount has not been paid despite repeated requests. It has been further contended that the anticipatory bail having been granted on the basis of the compromise, the breach thereof disentitles respondent No.2 from the concession of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has further argued that the respondent No.2 has played fraud not only with the petitioner/complainant but also with this Court. According to learned counsel, the respondent No.2 has willfully failed to honour the compromise. Learned counsel has emphasized that the respondent No.2 has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail solely on the basis of compromise and the conduct of the petitioner in violating the settlement amounts to misuse of concession granted by this Court. Furthermore, the respondent No.2 has neither sought extension of time nor approached this Court for modification of the compromise arrived at between the parties which clearly shows the mala fide intention of the respondent No.2 since the inception of the compromise. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel has submitted that pursuant to interim protection afforded to the accused-petitioner, he has joined investigation. According to learned State counsel, after completion of the investigation, challan stands presented and tria