Back
Manan Chugh fails to set aside bail order as no shown: High Court
Distinct Legal Remedies for Bail Challenges
The
has firmly reiterated the conceptual difference between "
" and
"
"
while dismissing a petition that sought to overturn the regular bail granted to a woman accused in a travel fraud case. Justice Sumeet Goel held that without any
or
, the original order—if not
—cannot be disturbed.
The Case: A Travel Fraud Allegation
The petitioner, Manan Chugh, had paid ₹8,90,000 to respondent No.2, who along with her father operated a travel business. According to the complaint, when the travel date approached, Chugh discovered that the air tickets and hotel reservations were forged, cancelled, or invalid, forcing him to make fresh arrangements at a much higher cost. An FIR was registered under Sections 318(4), 3(5) and 316(2) of the at .
The , granted regular bail to the accused on . Dissatisfied, Chugh approached the High Court seeking to set aside that order under Section 483(3) read with (erstwhile Section 439(2) and 482 ).
Arguments Over Bail's Merits
Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the investigative material, which revealed a deliberate scheme of cheating and forgery from the very inception. They contended that the court below erroneously treated the matter as a mere breach of contract, ignoring multiple similar FIRs against the accused and her alleged —she had previously been intercepted at IGI Airport while attempting to flee to Dubai.
The State supported the petitioner, noting the accused's pattern of similar offences reflecting criminal propensity.
Counsel for respondent No.2 countered that the petition was essentially an impermissible attempt to review a well-reasoned bail order. They argued that the power to cancel or set aside bail under the BNSS is confined to cases of actual , , or —none of which were alleged. No supervening event since the grant of bail had been placed on record.
Court's Reasoning: No Supervening Misconduct
Justice Goel relied on the earlier ruling in Dinesh Madan v. State of Haryana (CRM-M-9029-2023, decided on ), which established a clear distinction between the two remedies. The court observed:
"There is a conceptual distinction, between ' ' & 'setting-aside of a bail order'. In a plea seeking ' '; the factors required to be considered are akin to /events or mis-conduct of accused whereas in a plea seeking 'setting-aside of a bail order'; the factors required to be considered are akin to the order in question being unjustified or illegal or not based on relevant consideration(s)."
Applying this test, the court found that the petitioner was essentially challenging the merits of the original bail order—alleging that the trial court had failed to weigh material available at the time of granting bail—rather than pointing to any . Since no material was brought on record to show that respondent No.2 had attempted to , , or violate any condition, the grounds raised were insufficient to set aside the order.
The court further noted:
"The scope of consideration before this Court, however, is limited. It is trite that the parameters governing setting-aside of bail are distinct from those governing grant of bail. Once bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled in a routine manner unless it is shown that the accused has misused the , attempted to , influenced witnesses, or that the order granting bail is , illegal or based on wholly irrelevant considerations."
Key Observations
The judgment contained several pivotal observations:
"Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the Court below which has granted the bail or the seriousness of the offence, by itself, is not sufficient to recall/setting-aside of such an order."
"The petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that after the grant of regular bail, respondent No.2 has attempted to , or violate any condition imposed by the Court. The apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are largely speculative and not supported by any cogent material."
"The order passed by the Court below is a well-reasoned and cannot be said to be suffering from vice of ."
Final Verdict: Dismissed with Passport Surrender
Dismissing the petition, Justice Goel held that no ground was made out to set aside the regular bail granted to respondent No.2. However, given the
"
"
—including the
concerns raised by the petitioner—the court directed respondent No.2 to surrender her passport within seven days with the concerned trial court.
The court clarified that its observations would not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the trial court free to proceed independently.
