Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Granted on Basis of Compromise; Imposes ₹25,000 Costs for Breach of Judicial Undertaking
Case Name: Surinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 03 February 2026
Citation: CRM-26279-2023 in CRM-M-32153-2021
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that when anticipatory bail is granted solely on the basis of a compromise placed before the Court, non-compliance with the terms of such settlement constitutes a breach of judicial trust and justifies cancellation of bail. The Court held that such cancellation does not amount to review barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C., but is an exercise of the Court’s inherent power to revoke bail when its foundational premise collapses.
Summary: The application (CRM-26279-2023) was filed by the complainant seeking recall of the order dated 17.01.2022, whereby anticipatory bail had been granted to the accused-petitioner in FIR No.157 dated 10.07.2020 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana.
The FIR alleged that the petitioner, Director of JMS Investment Pvt. Ltd., induced the complainant to purchase Flat No.403 in a housing project for ₹36 lakhs, received ₹14 lakhs in cash and ₹23,16,000/- through cheques, but failed to deliver possession within the stipulated time and refused refund.
During hearing of the anticipatory bail petition, the parties entered into a compromise dated 25.11.2021 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court. Under the settlement, the petitioner agreed to hand over possession of an alternate furnished flat (Flat No.414, Second Floor) and execute the sale deed by 25.12.2022. Relying exclusively on the compromise, a Coordinate Bench granted anticipatory bail on 17.01.2022, directing the parties to abide by the settlement.
The complainant contended that the petitioner failed to honour the compromise and had secured bail solely on the assurance of compliance. The petitioner opposed the application, invoking Section 362 Cr.P.C., arguing that the order could not be recalled and that the complainant had alternative civil remedies.
The Court observed that the earlier bail order was not decided on merits but was predicated entirely upon the compromise. It held that once a party secures discretionary relief on the basis of a settlement, the undertaking ceases to be merely contractual and becomes a solemn assurance to the Court. Breach thereof amounts to abuse of process and justifies cancellation of bail.
Referring to Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 913), the Court noted the Supreme Court’s caution against grant of bail on undertakings. However, since the earlier order pre-dated that decision, the Court proceeded to examine the matter on merits.
Upon reconsideration, the Court noted serious allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and fraudulent conduct, as well as multiple criminal antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner. Though investigation had culminated and trial was underway, the Court held that in light of the petitioner’s conduct and antecedents, he did not deserve anticipatory bail.
The Court clarified that cancellation of bail in these circumstances does not amount to review barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C., as bail orders are inherently dynamic and liable to cancellation upon violation of conditions.
Decision: The application was allowed and the main anticipatory bail petition was dismissed. The bail order dated 17.01.2022 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to surrender within 15 days and granted liberty to seek regular bail on merits before the trial Court. Costs of ₹25,000/- were imposed to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali, with recovery proceedings directed in case of default.