Neeraj Wadhawan v. State of Punjab & Another

IN Neeraj W

State of P

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1BNSS, 20 No.2 vide Ferozepur punishabl Station Sa

¶2Ferozepur THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

Wadhawan

V/s Punjab and another

decision: 27.04.2026 Uploading : 28.04.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advoc Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AA Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocat ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been f 023 seeking cancellation of antic e order dated 19.01.2026 (Annex r in FIR No.294 dated 18. le under Section 61 of the Pu adar, Ferozepur. The relevant portion of the r, reads as under:

"Heard. In view of the afo to the fact that the petitioner interrogation, the detailed order while granting the relief of inter hereby made absolute. The pet conditions incorporated in the p

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-6185-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondents SUMEET GOEL cate for the petitioner. AG Punjab. te for respondent No.2. filed under Section 483(3) of cipatory bail granted to respond xure P-4) passed by Sessions Jud

10.2025 registered for offenc unjab Excise Act, 1914 at Pol order passed by Sessions Jud foresaid specific stand taken by the St r is no more required for custod dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Co rim protection in this bail application titioner shall continue to abide by previous order. This bail applicat

ent dge, ces lice dge, tate dial urt, n is

¶3below has appreciati has furthe liquor wh further su CFSL rep clearly es been furt resulted in interrogat has been applicatio cancellati for.

¶4by way of Police (Ci the said st stands allowed and disposed of, and file be consigned to the record

Learned counsel for the pet s passed the said impugned orde ing the seriousness and gravity o er iterated that the case pertains t hich poses great danger to publ ubmitted that the recovery of 2 port indicating presence of alco stablishes the hazardous nature ther contended that such unl n loss of several life within the tion of the petitioner is essential further argued that the impugn on of mind. Thus, keeping on of the anticipatory bail grant Learned State counsel has fi f an affidavit of Sukhwinder Sin ity), District Ferozepur and has tatus report; relevant whereof rea "3.

xxx

The present FIR was registered o four accused. The details qua t given in details in the column me During investigation of the case, and Harish were recorded by witnesses have stated that they

accordingly. Police record be retur d room." titioner has iterated that the Co er in a mechanical manner witho of the allegations. Learned coun to manufacture and sale of spurio lic health and safety. It has be 00 litres of illicit alcohol and ohol in high concentration wh of the substance involved. It h lawful activities have previou e State and therefore, the custod to unearth the larger conspiracy ned order has been passed witho in view the gravity of offen ted to respondent No.2 is entrea iled status report dated 28.02.20 gh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent raised submissions in tandem w ads as under: xxx

xxx on the basis of secret information aga the facts of the FIR have already b eant for "Bias registration of the FIR the statement of witnesses Morha Sin the Investigating Officer and both y heard the accused discussing amo

ned ourt out nsel ous een ich usly dial y. It out nce, ted t of with inst een IR". ngh

¶5that the pr out any gr granted b bail is a considerin counsel, t no superv petitioner petition is

¶6perused th

¶7this Cour CRM-M-9 under:- themselves "that they are selling alternate to the whisky. Details of All Accused

In order to arrest the accu made by the Police Department order to arrest them.

Name of the Accused Sukhwinder Singh son of Jag Singh Sukhpreet Singh alias Sukha Amrik Singh Atma Singh

Status of Investigation.

¶4That the investigation in th Learned counsel appearing resent petition is misconceived a rounds that would warrant cance by the Court below. Furthermo well reasoned and speaking or ng the material placed before the respondent No.2 has coopera vening circumstances or misuse r. On the strength of these subm s prayed for. I have heard learned couns he record. It would be apposite to refe rt titled as Dinesh Madan vs. S 9029-2023, decided on 17.05.

ethanol" I the form of alcohol as ch used persons, best efforts are be t and raids are regularly conducted Status gir Yet to be arrested. Joined investigation Yet to be arrested Yet to be arrested his case is still under way." for respondent No.2 has itera as the petitioner has failed to ma ellation of anticipatory bail alrea ore, the order granting anticipato rder which has been passed af the Court. According to learn ated fully with the investigation a of liberty have been shown by missions, the dismissal of the inst sel for the rival parties and ha er herein to a judgment passed State of Haryana and another 2024; relevant whereof reads

eap eing d in ted ake ady ory fter ned ant ave by r in

"12. The concept of "cancellat terms of Section 439 (2) of 1973 Co earlier statute i.e. 1898 Code as w decidendi of judgment in case of G that, in the 1898 Code, the bail grant only by it & bail granted by a Sess Sessions Court only. However, Se power to cancel bail which has been the High Court as also the Sessions relates to Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C. thereof is that the High Court as powers to cancel "any bail" grant vested under this Chapter. In o empowered to cancel a bail granted Court of a Magistrate while the Sessi granted by High Court or by itself o Court can cancel bail granted supervening/new circumstances or on or on account of violation of any c while granting bail. The Magistrate him but he cannot cancel a bail gra except when such accused has imposed upon by such High Court o such accused. This position, is indu with powers for cancellation of bail Code whereas the High Court and powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C under Chapter XXXIII of 1973 Code

12.1 Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. been released on bail under this Cha which engirths in itself, Section 4 anticipatory bail/pre-arrest bail) as realm of all kinds of bails, whether there is no conceptual difference be cancellation of anticipatory bail ex statutory power to cancel an antic Sessions Court.

12.2. At this juncture, it would springing up before Courts. Petition

tion of bail" is statutorily manifested ode. This concept was embodied in well albeit with difference(s). The ra Gurcharan Singh (supra) makes it cl ted by the High Court could be cancel sions Court could be cancelled by s ection 439(2) of 1973 Code has ves granted "under this chapter" upon b Court. The words "under this Chapt . of 1973 & hence the unequivocal res also the Sessions Court have requi ted by "any Court" by way of pow other words; the High Court is w by itself or by a Sessions Court or by ions Court is empowered to cancel a b or by a Magistrate. However, a Sessi by High Court only on account n account of misconduct of such accu condition(s) imposed by the High Co e can, of course, cancel bail granted anted by High Court or Sessions Co violated/contravened any condition or Sessions Court while granting bai ubitable, as a Magistrate has been ves only in terms of Section 437(5) of 19 d Sessions Court have been vested w C., of 1973 to cancel "any bail gran ". , 1973 deals with "any person who apter" i.e. Chapter XXXIII of 1973 Co 438 of the Code (provision envisag s well. Hence such power operates regular bail or anticipatory bail. Er etween cancellation of regular bail a except that a Magistrate will not h ipatory bail granted by High Court be profitable to consider an issue of n(s) labelled as plea(s) for "cancellat

d in atio lear lled uch sted both ter" sult isite wers well ions of used ourt d by ourt n(s) il to sted with nted ode, ging s in rgo, ave t or ften

of bail" are filed in Court(s), more o actually seeking "cancellation of ba the grant of bail or on account of an such accused to remain on bail OR ought not to have been granted at al conspectus of such case. The 197 "cancellation of bail" nor "setting-a the words "any person who has b committed to custody". There is no difference between "cancellation o order"; a difference which, by way between chalk and cheese. The Ho Singh (supra) and Neeru Yadav (su "cancellation of bail" is sough circumstances/subsequent developme "setting-aside of a bail order" is so bail order on ground of it being perv The parameters for consideration of contrastive.

¶13The next aspect that crave relevant for considering of a plea for of a bail order."At the very outset; well settled a principle to be ratio grant of bail vis.-a-vis. cancella different.

¶14In a plea seeking "cancel show, primarily, subsequent superv having endeavored to influence/int violated bail condition(s) or accused accused having secured bail by mis or bail having been granted in ign and factors of akin nature. The H Himanshu Sharma (supra) has de factors as have been stated by this Co

14.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supr (supra) has enounced regarding the applicant (seeking cancellation of ba be tested on the anvil of preponderan

often than not, whether such applican ail" on account of the accused misus ny supervening developments disentitl R where the plea raised is that, the b ll vide the impugned order, in the fact 73 Code neither stipulates the wo aside of a bail order" but only stipula been released on bail be arrested a o gainsaying that there is a foundatio of bail" and "setting-aside of a b of simile, can be said to be as stark n'ble Supreme Court in cases of Ra upra) has incontestably articulated t ht for on account of superven ents/misconduct of accused etc. wher ought for by laying challenge to the s verse or based on irrelevant material f the two are, accordingly, different a es attention is as to what are the fact r "cancellation of bail" or "setting-as it deserves to be noted that, it is too ocinated upon, that consideration(s) tion/setting-aside thereof are entir llation of bail"; such applicant ough vening circumstances such as accu timidate witness(s) or accused hav d having committed another offence(s) srepresenting/concealing material fac norance/violation of statutory provisi Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case elineated the nature and kind of s ourt hereinabove. reme Court in the case of Sanjay Gan e nature and degree of burden upon ail). The plea of such an applicant has nce of probabilities & such an applic

nt is sing ling tual ords ates onal k as anjit that ning reas said l(s). tors side far for rely t to used ving ) or ct(s) ions e of uch ndhi s to

is not required to prove, beyond rea in support of such a plea.

¶15In a plea seeking "settin required to be considered are as relevant consideration(s); grounds r have been duly factored into the orde nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour held that the High Court or Sessions bail passed by an inferior Court considerations, order granting bail h It goes without saying that the High C plea for setting-aside a bail order; appellate jurisdiction & hence it can the order (granting bail) from all th dealing with such a plea, ought not t expressed in the impugned order.

¶16It would not be pragmatic parameters in this regard as every generis. Such a quixotic attempt o formulae can be laid down in this reg

¶17As an epilogue to abov emerge: I. (i) There is a conceptual distinct "setting-aside of a bail order". In the factors required to be co circumstances/events or mis-cond seeking"setting-aside of a bail considered are akin to the order in not based on relevant consideratio "setting aside of a bail order" is mor order granting bail before a superior

(ii) It would be pragmatic as clarity, that a plea filed under Sectio to whether the plea is for "cancella bail order." or on both accounts. xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

IV. Plea seeking cancellation

asonable doubt, the facts pleaded by h ng-aside of a bail order"; the fact to whether bail has been granted required to be evaluated for grant of b er granting bail and other factors of a rt in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) s Court can set-aside an order grant if such order is based on irrelev has resulted in miscarriage of justice Court or Sessions Court; while dealin sits in a jurisdiction, which is akin n look into the veracity and propriety he perspectives. However, a Court wh to substitute its own opinion with the c to even attempt to lay-down exhaus case, especially a criminal case, is ought to be avoided as no inexora gard. ve discussion, the following princip tion, between "cancellation of bail" a plea seeking "cancellation of ba onsidered are akin to superven duct of accused whereas in a p order"; the factors required to question being unjustified or illegal on(s). In other words, a plea seek re in the nature of laying challenge to r Court upon merits thereof. also desirable, for the cause of ease a on 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 clearly states ation of bail" or for "setting aside o xxx

xxx xxx

xxx of anticipatory bail/pre-arrest order

him tors on akin ting vant etc. ng a n to y of hile one tive sui able ples "& il"; ning plea be l or king o an s as

(i) A High Court has power t it or by a Sessions Court.

(ii) A Sessions Court has pow by High Court or earlier granted b cancel anticipatory bail granted by violated any condition(s) imposed b bail) or on account of such accused h trying to influence witness(s) or ha himself or having committed anoth factors of akin nature. In other anticipatory bail granted to an accu such likes supervening/subsequent veracity of the High Court order (w accused.)

(iii) In case cancellation of a Court is sought for; such plea ough Court itself. However, since there Court as also Sessions Court in term the filing of such a plea straight aw At the same time, it would be expedi before High Court) must show co Sessions Court in first instance.

(iv) The factors for considera anticipatory bail are whether the acc by trying to influence witness(s) or h another offence(s) while on bai cancellation of bail, whether bail fraud or concealing relevant mater There is no gainsaying that above fa is not axiomatic to exhaustively enum

(v) Where such plea raises g account of misrepresentation of facts which has granted bail or concealme expedient that such plea be filed, in which had granted bail in question.

(vi) The degree and nature applicant (seeking cancellation o preponderance of probabilities and doubt.

to cancel an anticipatory bail granted wer to cancel an anticipatory bail gran by it. However, the Sessions Court High Court only where the accused by the High Court (while granting s having misused liberty granted to him aving tried to delay trial by absent her offence(s) while on bail and ot words, a Sessions Court can can used by High Court only on accoun t events but cannot adjudicate up whereby such bail was granted to s n anticipatory bail granted by Sessi ht to be filed ordinarily before Sessi e is concurrent jurisdiction of the H ms of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. of 19 way before the High Court is not barr ient that such a plea (straight away fi ogent reasons for not approaching ation in a plea for cancellation of cused has misused liberty granted to h has tried to delay trial or has commit il, whether accused has flouted was procured by misrepresentation rial, and similar factors of akin natu actors are only illustrative in nature a merate them. ground(s) that bail has been granted s or a fraud having been played on Co ent of material/relevant facts; it would the first instance itself, before the Co of proof required to be shown by of an anticipatory bail) is that d not one of being beyond reasona

d by nted can uch m by ting ther ncel t of pon uch ions ions High 973, red. filed f an him tted or ure. as it d on ourt d be ourt an of

¶8raised by has been responden Sessions brought o anticipato tamper wi by the C speculativ petitioner spurious l granted pa present c subsequen itself info V. Plea seeking setting aside of an an

(i) A plea seeking setting asid order by a Sessions Court has to be e

(ii) The factor, required to b aside of an anticipatory/pre-arrest b order (granting anticipatory bail/pr nature and gravity of allegations a crime(s) alleged, need for custodia influencing the investigation/witness from process of justice etc. VI.

Where a plea mad raises grounds regarding "cancellat bail order", such plea has to be essen The averments made in th learned counsel for the petition filed for cancellation of the ant nt No.2 vide order dated 19.01 Judge, Ferozepur. In the pres on record any material to dem ory bail, respondent No.2 has ith evidence, evade investigation ourt. The apprehensions expres ve and not supported by any cog r regarding gravity of the offe liquor cannot be a ground for ca articularly in the absence of any case, anticipatory bail was init ntly made absolute vide order formed the Court that respond

nticipatory bail/pre-arrest bail order de of an anticipatory bail/pre-arrest b essentially filed before High Court. be considered in a plea seeking sett bail order; is as to whether the impug re-arrest bail) has objectively dealt w against accused, role of accused in al interrogation, likelihood of accu es, likelihood of the accused abscond de under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 19 tion of bail" as also for "setting aside ntially made before the superior Cour he petition as also the argume ner, indubitably, show that petiti ticipatory bail order granted to

1.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed sent case, the petitioner has n monstrate that after the grant attempted to influence witness n or violate any condition impos ssed by the petitioner are larg gent material. The argument of ence and the hazardous nature ancellation of bail once it has be y supervening circumstances. In tially granted on 29.10.2025 a dated 19.01.2026 after the St dent No.2 was not required

ting ned with used ding e of rt. ents ion by not of ses, sed ely of een tate

custodial Court is detailed e manner o however, already g joined inv not sough before th investigat responden considera Cancellati circumsta intimidati dissatisfac bail or th such an o against th ought not anticipato not broug allegation the cance order gran interrogation. At the stage of con not required to conclusively d examination of evidence. If th of investigation, appropriate re such grievances cannot automat granted. It is worthwhile to note vestigation pursuant to the bail ht cancellation of bail on this his Court that the FIR was re ting agency has not reported an nt No.2 to interfere with the in ation(s) for grant of bail and fo ion of bail already granted requ ances such as misuse of lib ion of witnesses or deliberate ev ction with the reasoning of the C he seriousness of the offence, b rder. Learned counsel has laid m he respondent No.2 are serious, to have been considered by the ory bail. In the considered opini ght any fresh or supervening m n of seriousness of offence witho llation of bail. Moreover, such nting the bail perverse. The orde

nsideration of anticipatory bail, etermine culpability or conduc he petitioner is aggrieved by emedies are available under la tically result in cancellation of b e herein that respondent No.2 h order and that the prosecution h ground. It is conceded positi egistered on 18.10.2025 and ny non-cooperation or attempt nvestigation. It is trite law that or cancellation of bail are distin uires demonstration of superveni berty, tampering with eviden vasion of the judicial process. M Court below which has granted by itself, is not sufficient to rec much emphasis that the allegatio which according to the petition Court below at the time of grant ion of this Court, the petitioner h aterial before this Court. A m out concrete material cannot just a plea cannot, by itself, render er passed by the Sessions Court i

ct a aw; ion by nct. ing nce, ere call ons ner, t of ere tify

well-reaso of non-ap entirety o any good impugned same in rejection.

¶9the case i earlier gra petition in

¶10under Se anticipato Sessions J

¶11hereinabo the case.

12.

April 27, Ajay

oned speaking order and cannot pplication of judicial mind. T of the facts and circumstances of d ground to hold that the Se d order, has overstepped its jur right perspective. Therefore,

Keeping in view the entirety in hand, no ground is made ou anted to respondent No.2 vide th n hand deserves rejection. As a sequel to the above dis ection 483(3) of the BNSS, ory bail order dated 19.01.2026 Judge, Ferozepur is dismissed. It, indubitably, goes with ove shall be construed as an expr Pending application(s), if any

2026

t be said to be suffering from v This Court, keeping in view f the case(s) in hand, does not fi essions Court, while passing risdiction or has not exercised the petition(s) in hand deserv y of the facts and circumstances ut to set-aside the anticipatory b he impugned order. Therefore, scussion, the present petition fi 2023, seeking cancellation (Annexure P-4) passed by learn hout saying that nothing s ression of opinion on the merits y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

vice find ves s of led of ned aid