SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail to granted by the Session Court order dated 30.04.2026 case no. BA- 606-2026(Annexure P-3) to the accused| Prabhjot Kaur) in case FIR No. 16 dated 07.03.2026, under Sections 303(2) BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) old section (379 IPC) registered at Police Station Dhilwan,Kapurthala, Punjab (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice & fair play.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contends that respondent No. 2/accused obtained anticipatory bail despite serious allegations of theft and unauthorized transfer of funds. It is argued that, as per the FIR and the material collected during inquiry, the accused allegedly removed 28–30 tolas of gold from the complainant’s house and transferred an amount of ₹ 7,36,900/- from the accounts of the complainant and his wife to the joint account maintained by the accused and her husband by using their mobile phones. It is further submitted that the transferred amount was subsequently withdrawn/transacted through UPI and the recovery of the stolen gold and misappropriated money is yet to be effected. Learned counsel asserts that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary for effecting recovery and unearthing the complete modus operandi, and therefore the order granting anticipatory bail suffers from illegality and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.

3. Learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice has neither supported the case of the petitioner so as to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent nor opposed the prayer.

4. Heard counsel for the respective parties.

5. Before considering the contentions raised in this petition, certain principles, which govern the grant of anticipatory bail, are required to be noticed. In Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has enunciated the considerations that must govern the grant of anticipatory by holding as under: -

92.3…While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc.

92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.”

6. Similarly, in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP & Anr., (2016) 15 SCC 422, it was held by Supreme Court as under: -

“11. It is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are, (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.”

7. Proceeding ahead, there can be no doubt that all the aforesaid factors are required to be taken into consideration while granting anticipatory bail to an accused, but it is a well-established principle that once bail has been granted, it would require cogent and overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. At the same time, equally important is to note that bail can be revoked by the superior court, if the court granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record, as observed by the Supreme Court in “Vipan Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab 2021 SCC OnLine SC