Bare Khan v. State of Punjab and Another

IN Bare Khan

State of P

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1BNSS, 20 No.2 vide Sessions J for offenc of the Imm

¶2Judge, Fa THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

n

V/s Punjab and another

decision: 28.07.2026 Uploading : 29.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Pu Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been f 023 seeking cancellation of antic e order dated 31.01.2026 (Ann Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib in FIR N ces punishable under Sections 4 migration Act at Police Station A The relevant portion of the o atehgarh Sahib, reads as under:

"8.……… The net result o purpose is to be served by interrogation. Hence, the accu anticipatory bail with the condi period of four working days from shall comply with all the condition joins the investigation, the IO sha

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-9898-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondents SUMEET GOEL e for the petitioner. unjab. e for respondent No.2. filed under Section 483(3) of cipatory bail granted to respond nexure P-2) passed by Additio No.21 dated 21.01.2026 register 06 and 420 of IPC and Section Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. rder passed by Additional Sessio of the entire discussion is that no logi compelling the accused to custod used is admitted to the concession ition to appear before the IO within m today, with further condition that ns of Section 482 BNSS. As and when all release him on anticipatory bail.

ent nal red . ons ical dial n of n a t he n he

¶3below has appreciati illegal, ar anticipato has failed responden United St an amoun while the been furth been invo criminal a below, the anticipato to apprec necessary for tracin transactio further co custodial the event of non compliance wit Investigating Officer may proc anticipatory bail application is a be construed as an expression on application be consigned to rec after due compliance."

Learned counsel for the pet s passed the said impugned orde ing the seriousness and gravity rbitrary and contrary to the sett ory bail. Learned counsel has fu d to appreciate the seriousness an nt No.2 who under false assura tates of America, dishonestly ind nt of ₹50,00,000/-, out of which remaining amount of ₹30,00,00 her contended that respondent N olved in several criminal cases o antecedents having been brought e same were completely ignored ory bail. According to learned co ciate that the custodial interro y not only for recovery of the re ng the money trail, identifying on and carrying out an effective ontended that the Court below h interrogation of respondent N

th directions issued vide this order, ceed as per law. Accordingly, allowed. Nothing expressed herein sh n the merits of the case. Papers of b cord-room (Sessions), Fatehgarh Sah titioner has iterated that the Co er in a mechanical manner witho of the allegations and the same tled principles governing grant urther iterated that the Court bel nd gravity of the allegations agai ances to secure employment in duced the complainant to part w h only ₹20,00,000/- was return 00/- is still to be recovered. It h No.2 is a habitual offender and h of a similar nature and despite t to the notice of the learned Co d while extending the concession ounsel, the Court below has fai ogation of respondent No.2 w emaining cheated amount but a g other persons involved in and fair investigation. It has be has mechanically observed that No.2 was not necessary witho

hall hib, ourt out e is of ow inst with ned, has has his ourt n of led was also een

considerin prejudice contended bail by members impugned keeping in granted to

¶4way of af Sub-divis tandem w ng the peculiar facts of the p the investigation at its very ince d that respondent No.2 has misu threatening and intimidating with dire consequences. It h d order has been passed with n view the gravity of offence, c o respondent No.2 is entreated fo Learned State counsel has fil ffidavit of Gurdeep Singh, PPS, ion Amloh, District Fatehgarh S with the said status report; relevan "9.

That it is further inquiry and investigation, no mate any person extended any threat o Khan (present petitioner) with allegations regarding threat as m been found substantiated from investigation. Role of the Accused/Respondent

¶10That respondent No.2 Raji role in inducing the complainant with a total amount of Rs.50 lak send the complainant to the Un channels. During inquiry, it su licensed immigration agent under himself as capable of arrangi dishonestly obtained the said presence of Tarandeep Singh a amount, respondent No.2 returne and neither arranged the immig other documents of the complaina

present case which has seriou eption. Learned counsel has furth used the concession of anticipato the complainant and his fam has been further argued that hout application of mind. Th cancellation of the anticipatory b or. led short reply dated 10.03.2026 , Deputy Superintendent of Poli Sahib and has raised submissions nt whereof reads as under: r submitted that during the course erial has come on record to indicate t or intimidation to the complainant B h respect to the present case. T mentioned in the present petition have m the police record at this stage No.2 iv Kumar @ Rajiv Verma played a dir t Bare Khan (present petitioner) to p khs on the representation that he wo nited States of America through prop rfaced that respondent No.2 was no r the Immigration Act, yet he represen ing immigration abroad and ther amount from the complainant in and Harjinder Singh. Out of the s ed Rs.20 lakhs but retained Rs.30 la gration nor returned the passport a ant.

usly her ory mily hus, by ice, s in e of that Bare The not of rect part ould oper ot a nted reby said akhs

.

¶5that the pr make out already g anticipato passed aft learned c investigat been show dismissal

¶6perused th

¶7this Cour CRM-M-9 under:- xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

Learned counsel appearing resent petition has been misconc any grounds that would warran granted by the Court below. ory bail is a well reasoned and fter considering the material plac counsel, the respondent No.2 tion and no supervening circum wn by the petitioner. On the s of the instant petition is prayed 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. "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

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx" for respondent No.2 has itera ceived as the petitioner has failed nt cancellation of anticipatory b Furthermore, the order granti d speaking order which has be ced before the Court. According has cooperated fully with mstances or misuse of liberty ha strength of these submissions, for. sel for the rival parties and ha er herein to a judgment passed State of Haryana and another 2024; relevant whereof reads 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

ted d to ing een g to ave ave by r in as d in atio lear lled uch sted both ter" sult isite

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 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

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 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

well ions of used ourt d by ourt n(s) il to sted with nted has ode, ging s in rgo, and ave t or ften tion nt is sing ling tual ords ates and onal k as

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 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

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 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

that ning reas said l(s). and tors side far for rely t to used ving ) or ct(s) ions e of uch ndhi s to cant him tors on akin has ting vant etc. ng a n to

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

(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.)

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 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

hile one tive sui able ples "& il"; ning plea be l or king o an and s as of a d by nted can has uch m by ting ther ncel t of pon

(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. 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

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 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

ions ions High 973, red. filed f an him tted or ure. as it d on ourt d be ourt an of able ting ned with used ding e of

¶8raised by has been responden Additiona petitioner the grant the witne condition petitioner The princ granting a the gravit the requir the allege No.2 has therefore, scope of c is altogeth for grant this Court or illegali cancellati No.2 has anticipato The averments made in th learned counsel for the petition filed for cancellation of the nt No.2 vide order dated 31.01 al Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh r has not brought on record any of anticipatory bail, responden esses, tamper with evidence, ev imposed by the Court. The r are largely speculative and not cipal contention raised on beha anticipatory bail, the learned Co ty of the allegations, the crimina rement of custodial interrogation ed cheated amount. It has furthe misused the concession of bail b the order granting anticipatory consideration in a petition seekin her different from that applicabl of bail. The material placed be t to hold that the impugned order ity which would justify interfere on of bail. Although the petiti s criminal antecedents and has ory bail but no material has b

he petition as also the argume ner, indubitably, show that petiti anticipatory bail granted to

1.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed Sahib. In the present case, y material to demonstrate that af nt No.2 has attempted to influen vade investigation or violate a apprehensions expressed by supported by any cogent materi alf of the petitioner is that wh ourt below has failed to appreci al antecedents of respondent No n and the necessity of recovery er been contended that respond by threatening the complainant an y bail deserves to be set aside. T ng cancellation of anticipatory b le while considering an applicati efore this Court does not persua r suffers from any patent pervers ence in exercise of jurisdiction ioner has alleged that respond s extended threats after grant been placed before this Court

ents ion by fter nce any ial. hile iate o.2, y of ent nd, The ion ade sity for ent of

substantia imposed investigat material interfered would ma allegation in nature material cancellati

¶9not requir examinati investigat grievance granted. I investigat prosecutio conceded

21.01.202 cooperatio investigat cancellati demonstra tampering ate that respondent No.2 has while granting anticipatory tion as directed by the learned showing that respondent No.2 d with the investigation or has ake it impossible for a fair invest ns regarding intimidation and in e. However, bald allegations u evidence cannot, by itself, c on of anticipatory bail. At the stage of consideration red to conclusively determine c ion of evidence. If the petition tion, appropriate remedies are av es cannot automatically result It is worthwhile to note herein th tion pursuant to the grant of on has not sought cancellation position before this Court t 26 and the investigating agen on or attempt by responden tion. It is trite law that the consid on of bail are distinct. Cancellat ation of supervening circumsta g with evidence, intimidation of

violated any of the condition bail or he has failed to jo d Court below. There is also 2 has attempted to abscond, h s committed any overt act wh tigation or trial to proceed. Th nfluence over witnesses are serio unsupported by any independ constitute sufficient grounds n of anticipatory bail, the Court culpability or to conduct a detai ner is aggrieved by the manner vailable under law; however, su in cancellation of bail alrea hat respondent No.2 has joined f anticipatory bail and that n of bail on this ground. It that the FIR was registered ncy has not reported any no nt No.2 to interfere with deration(s) for grant of bail and tion of bail already granted requi ances such as misuse of liber f witnesses or deliberate evasion

n(s) oin has ich he ous ent for t is led of uch ady is on on-for ires rty,

the judici below wh is not suf emphasis nature, wh the Court opinion o superveni offence w Moreover perverse. Sahib is a from vice the entire find any impugned same in rejection.

¶10the case i earlier gra petition in

¶11under Se ial process. Mere dissatisfaction hich has granted the bail or the se fficient to recall such an order that the allegations against th hich according to the petitioner, below at the time of grant of a of this Court, the petitioner ing material before this Court. A without concrete material canno r, such a plea cannot, by itself, The order passed by the Add a well-reasoned speaking order e of non-application of judicial m ty of the facts and circumstance good ground to hold that the S 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,

n with the reasoning of the Co eriousness of the offence, by itse r. Learned counsel has laid mu he respondent No.2 are serious , ought to have been considered anticipatory bail. In the consider has not brought any fresh A mere allegation of seriousness ot justify the cancellation of b render the order granting the b ditional Sessions Judge, Fatehga and cannot be said to be sufferi mind. This Court, keeping in vi es of the case(s) in hand, does n Sessions 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

ourt elf, uch in by red or s of ail. arh ing iew not ves s of led

anticipato Additiona

¶12hereinabo the case.

13.

July 28, 2 Ajay

ory bail order dated 31.01.2026 al Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sah It, indubitably, goes with ove shall be construed as an expr Pending application(s), if any

2026

(Annexure P-2) passed by learn hib is dismissed. hout saying that nothing s ression of opinion on the merits y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

ned aid