Punjab & Haryana High Court rejects plea to cancel anticipatory bail, rules that vague allegations cannot justify cancellation
Case Name: State of Haryana v. Rohit
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-26967-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the State’s petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent in a case involving charges under Sections 148, 149, 307, and 506 of the IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court held that cancellation of bail requires clear proof of misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or non-cooperation in investigation. In the absence of any cogent evidence of such misconduct, anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled merely on vague or unsubstantiated allegations.
Summary: The State sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail earlier granted to the respondent by the same Court in CRM-M-36973-2021, pertaining to an incident registered through FIR No. 38 dated February 13, 2021, at Police Station Chandhut, District Palwal. The State alleged that the respondent misled the Court during the initial bail hearing by providing incorrect information, claiming that his name appeared belatedly in the investigation, whereas he was mentioned earlier in witness statements. It was also contended that he threatened the complainant to withdraw the case and failed to cooperate in recovery of the weapon used in the offence.
The defence argued that the respondent was falsely implicated due to enmity, was not named in the initial version of the FIR, and had fully complied with all bail conditions. He contended that no independent evidence supported the allegations of threats or non-cooperation and that cancellation of bail requires strong, demonstrable reasons.
Justice Sumeet Goel referred to the principles laid down in Dinesh Madan v. State of Haryana (CRM-M-9029-2023, decided on 17.05.2024), clarifying the distinction between “cancellation of bail” and “setting aside of a bail order.” The Court emphasized that bail can be cancelled only when the accused misuses liberty, attempts to influence witnesses, commits another offence, or procures bail through fraud or suppression of material facts. Mere allegations without substantiation do not meet this threshold.
Decision: The Court found that the State failed to produce any credible evidence showing that the respondent misled the Court, violated bail conditions, or obstructed the investigation. The alleged threats were uncorroborated, and the non-recovery of the weapon did not establish non-cooperation. Observing that bail once granted should not be cancelled without strong justification, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the anticipatory bail order dated September 8, 2021. Pending applications were also disposed of.