*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of the IPC/482(2) of the BNSS seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.03.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in FIR No.43 dated 25.02.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 333, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 109(1) of BNS (added later on) at Police Station Sadar Rohtak.

2. The relevant portion of the order passed by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, reads as under:

“7. Since, no specific role of the applicant-accused has been attributed. Neither any injury has been attributed at the hand of the applicant-accused. The main accused Mohit has already been arrested. The recovery has already been effected. She is ready to join the investigation. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observations no case is made out for custodial interrogation of the applicant-accused, being widow lady of 58 years. Accordingly, present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed. It is directed that the applicant-accused shall join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and in the event of her arrest in this case she shall be released on interim bail on her furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer/Arresting Officer. She, shall, however abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A copy of this order be sent to the court of Illaka magistrate for information. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the Court below has passed the said impugned order in a mechanical manner without appreciating the seriousness and gravity of the allegations and the specific role attributed to respondent No.2. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered life-threatening injuries at the hands of respondent No.2 and other co-accused persons and the offence under Section 109(1) of BNS has been added after the opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of the injuries. It has been further contended that the respondent No.2 has actively participated in the occurrence and specific allegations regarding assault and criminal intimidation have been levelled against her in the FIR itself. According to learned counsel, despite the seriousness of the allegations, the Court below has granted the concession of anticipatory bail without considering the material aspects of the case. Learned counsel has emphasized that respondent No.2 alongwith co-accused persons is continuously extending threats to the petitioner and her family members and a complaint dated 13.03.2026 has already been submitted before the police authorities in this regard. It has been further submitted that the conduct of the respondent No.2 after grant of anticipatory bail clearly demonstrates the misuse of concession. It has been further argued that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind. Thus, keeping in view the gravity of offence, cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel has (on the strength of advance notice) has submitted that the concession of anticipatory bail was granted after due consideration of facts and circumstances. Learned State counsel has iterated that the cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail and unless there are supervening circumstances or misuse of concession, the bail once granted should not be ordinarily be cancelled.

5. Since the petition in hand is being adjudicate upon at the limine stage, this Court does not deem it necessary to issue notice to respondent No.2.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the record.

7. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court titled as Dinesh Madan vs. State of Haryana and another i