No Misuse of Bail, No Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Wife’s Plea
Case Name: Shubhpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 07 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-15109-2025
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that cancellation of anticipatory bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or interference with investigation. In the absence of such material, bail already granted cannot be cancelled merely because the complainant disputes the facts or alleges concealment of certain details.
Summary: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents. The anticipatory bail had been granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in connection with FIR registered under Sections 318(4), 82(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Women, Ludhiana.
According to the complainant, she was married to respondent in 2009 and was subjected to cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. She alleged that her father-in-law had attempted to molest her and that she had previously lodged complaints against the family members. Although earlier disputes were compromised, she later alleged that her husband had performed a second marriage with another woman and that the respondents were aware of and involved in the alleged acts.
The petitioner argued that the respondents had concealed material facts while seeking anticipatory bail, particularly regarding the alleged second marriage of her husband. She contended that a marriage certificate issued by a Gurdwara showed that the second marriage had been solemnized and that one of the respondents had even stood as a witness to the ceremony. On this basis, it was argued that the anticipatory bail granted to them should be cancelled.
The State, however, submitted that an inquiry had been conducted on the basis of an application filed by one of the respondents and the investigation revealed that no cognizable offence was made out. Consequently, a cancellation report had been prepared and was proposed to be filed before the competent court after approval from the senior police authorities.
The High Court examined the legal principles governing cancellation of bail and referred to precedents including Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana. The Court reiterated that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail and can be ordered only where the bail order suffers from serious infirmities or where the accused has misused the liberty granted to him.
Applying these principles, the Court observed that the allegations raised by the petitioner regarding concealment of facts related primarily to appreciation of evidence and determination of the role of the accused persons, which would be examined during investigation or trial. The Court also noted that there was no allegation that the respondents had attempted to influence the investigation, tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses after obtaining anticipatory bail.
The Court further considered the status report filed by the State which indicated that a detailed inquiry had already been conducted and that a cancellation report was proposed to be filed as no cognizable offence had been made out against the accused persons.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that no supervening circumstances existed to justify cancellation of anticipatory bail. Finding no illegality or perversity in the order granting bail, the Court dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail.