Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Magistrate’s Same-Day Cancellation of Bail After Addition of Offences; Reaffirms Accused’s Right to Protection and Proper Procedure

Case Name: Himanshu Yadav v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-33118-2025 & CRM-M-34338-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed both petitions and set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate cancelling the petitioner’s regular bail on the same day on which additional offences were added. The Court held that mere addition of offences does not automatically justify cancellation of bail and that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in reversing a subsisting bail order without any violation of bail conditions or proper application under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court reiterated that the investigating agency must follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand before seeking arrest or custody after addition of offences.

Summary: The petitions arose from an FIR registered in connection with a property transaction dispute, in which the petitioner had already been granted regular bail for the originally invoked offences. Subsequent to grant of bail, additional offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were added by the investigating agency. On the same day, the complainant’s application for cancellation of bail was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, despite the fact that the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application in respect of the newly added offences had been heard and reserved for orders by the Sessions Court earlier that day.

The High Court examined the sequence of events and found that the Magistrate proceeded with undue haste and ignored the protective direction issued by the Sessions Court requiring advance notice before arrest. It was observed that there was no allegation of misuse of bail, no violation of conditions, and no independent assessment of the necessity of custodial interrogation. The Magistrate also overlooked that specimen signatures had already been taken with the Court’s approval, undermining the justification for custody.

Relying on the law laid down in Pradeep Ram, the Court clarified that upon addition of further offences, the investigating agency must either seek appropriate orders for arrest under the relevant provisions or afford the accused an opportunity to seek bail in respect of the newly added offences. Cancellation of an existing bail order, particularly by the same Court without statutory basis, was held to be legally impermissible.

The Court concluded that the petitioner had been placed in an anomalous and prejudicial position, depriving him of a fair opportunity to avail legal remedies, and that the cancellation order was founded on conjectures rather than lawful grounds.

Decision: Both petitions were allowed. The order cancelling the petitioner’s bail was set aside, and the application for cancellation of bail was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail in respect of the additional offences upon joining investigation, with the original bail bonds revived. No fresh bonds were required unless the earlier bonds had been forfeited.