IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 AMRIT PAL KAUR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Mukul, Advocate for Mr. Binat Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal to respondent No.2 in case FIR No.874 dated 16.11.2024 under Sections 115, 351(2), 85 & 89 of BNS, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Karnal vide impugned order dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed in BA-1044-2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 subject to the condition that he shall join and cooperate with the Investigating/Arresting Officer and comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. It is submitted that respondent No. 2, misusing his position as a police official, has interfered with the investigation. It is further submitted that after obtaining bail, respondent No. 2 clandestinely procured confidential hospital and MTP records and also threatened the complainant and her family with false implication and violence, thereby violating the conditions of anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) BNSS. and harassing the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 deserves to be cancelled.

3. The learned State counsel submits that this Court after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced, granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2. The investigation in the instant case was carried out in a thorough and non-partitioned way, without any influence or interference. With respect to the alleged threats, it is submitted that the claims of the petitioner has not been corroborated.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, after re-agitating that baseless allegations have been leveled in the present petition, submits that the job profile of respondent No.2 cannot be made the sole reason to suggest malafide, in the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise. It is further pointed out that a similar application for cancellation of bail was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, which was dismissed by passing a well-reasoned order on 25.07.2025.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record with their able assistance.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that it was only after hearing the all the parties, respondent No.2 was granted the concession of anticipatory bail. With respect to the alleged violation of the conditions for granting bail, interference in investigation and the alleged threats made by the respondent No.2, no material has been placed on record to substantiate this contention.

7. As per the settled proposition of law, once bail has been granted, it would require cogent and overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. The order granting bail can only be revoked by the Superior Court while granting the said concession ignored the relevant material available on record, as has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vipin Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC Online SSC 854.

8. In Ms. X vs The State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349)]

observed that:

“Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have