Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Cancel Anticipatory Bail in Abetment of Suicide Case; Holds Suicide Note Alone Insufficient Without Supervening Misuse of Liberty
Case Name: Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Decision: 23 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-58250-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking setting aside/cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused, holding that cancellation of bail already granted requires proof of supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses or evasion of investigation. The Court held that mere seriousness of allegations or reliance on a suicide note, without subsequent misuse of bail, is insufficient to recall an anticipatory bail order.
Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking setting aside of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, vide order dated 06.06.2025 in FIR No.59 dated 19.03.2025, registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station City Nawanshahr. The case arose out of allegations of abetment of suicide of the petitioner’s son.
The petitioner contended that the Sessions Court had mechanically granted anticipatory bail without considering the suicide note, which was claimed to constitute a dying declaration. It was argued that the suicide note attributed harassment, illegal monetary demands and mental cruelty to the respondent No.2 (mother-in-law of the deceased) and other family members. Allegations of biased investigation, suppression of forensic examination and flight risk were also raised, particularly on the ground that the accused was a U.S. citizen.
The State opposed the petition and submitted that the respondent No.2 had duly joined investigation pursuant to the bail order, was formally arrested and released as per procedure, and had cooperated throughout. It was further submitted that the suicide note and related material had already been sent for forensic examination and that no instance of misuse of liberty had been reported.
The High Court examined the settled distinction between cancellation of bail and setting aside of a bail order, relying on its earlier decision in Dinesh Madan v. State of Haryana (2024). The Court reiterated that cancellation of bail requires demonstration of post-bail misconduct or supervening circumstances, whereas dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the Court granting bail or seriousness of offence is insufficient.
The Court held that the evidentiary value, genuineness and legal effect of the suicide note are matters to be examined during investigation and trial, and cannot by themselves justify cancellation of anticipatory bail. The contention that the suicide note should be treated as a dying declaration was also rejected at the bail-cancellation stage. The plea of flight risk was found speculative, as no material was placed on record to show any attempt to flee or interfere with investigation.
Decision: The High Court declined to set aside the anticipatory bail granted, holding that no supervening circumstance or misuse of liberty was established.