“Serious Allegations Alone Cannot Undo Bail”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses to Set Aside Bail Without Misuse or Supervening Circumstances; Orders Accused to Surrender Passport
Case Name: Manan Chugh v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: September 15, 2026
Citation: CRM-M No. 25655 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the seriousness of the allegations or the complainant’s dissatisfaction with the reasoning adopted by the court granting bail is not, by itself, sufficient to set aside a regular bail order. Once bail has been granted, interference requires cogent and overwhelming grounds, such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, evasion of the judicial process, violation of bail conditions, or a finding that the bail order is perverse, illegal or based upon wholly irrelevant considerations.
The Court reiterated that “cancellation of bail” and “setting aside a bail order” are conceptually distinct. Cancellation ordinarily rests upon supervening circumstances or misconduct occurring after the grant of bail. A challenge seeking to set aside the original bail order attacks its legality and propriety on the ground that relevant considerations were ignored or irrelevant factors were considered. Although a superior court may examine the correctness of such an order, it should not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.
Where the challan had already been presented, the trial was likely to take time and no material showed that the accused had absconded, influenced witnesses, tampered with evidence or violated any condition after her release, the regular bail could not be withdrawn on speculative apprehensions. The allegations concerning forged travel tickets, previous cases, foreign connections and possible flight risk were insufficient in the absence of concrete material demonstrating post-bail misconduct or perversity in the order granting bail.
However, considering the apprehension regarding the accused’s alleged foreign connections and possible departure from India, the Court directed her to surrender her passport before the Trial Court within seven days.
Summary: The petition was filed under Sections 483(3) and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 439(2) and 482 CrPC, seeking to set aside the regular bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, on March 20, 2026.
The criminal proceedings arose from FIR No. 231 dated November 10, 2025, registered at Police Station Sector 53, Gurugram, for offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the complainant, respondent No. 2 operated a travel business along with her father and other co-accused. The complainant allegedly paid ₹8.90 lakh for proposed travel arrangements. When the date of travel approached, he claimed to have discovered that the flight tickets and hotel reservations were forged, cancelled or otherwise invalid. He was consequently required to make fresh arrangements at considerably higher rates.
The complainant argued that the matter involved deliberate cheating, forgery and dishonest inducement from the inception rather than a simple contractual dispute. He also alleged that respondent No. 2 had been involved in several similar cases and had previously been intercepted at Indira Gandhi International Airport while attempting to travel to Dubai. On this basis, he claimed that she posed a flight risk and might interfere with the trial, influence witnesses or repeat similar offences.
The State supported the allegation that respondent No. 2 had failed to provide the promised travel services and had been repeatedly implicated in similar offences. Respondent No. 2 opposed the petition, arguing that no subsequent event showed misuse of bail, interference with the course of justice or breach of any bail condition. She contended that the petition was an impermissible attempt to obtain a review of a reasoned bail order.
The High Court referred to its decision in Dinesh Madan v. State of Haryana and Another, CRM-M No. 9029 of 2023, decided on May 17, 2024, explaining the distinction between cancellation of bail due to subsequent misconduct and setting aside a bail order because it was legally unjustified when passed.
On examining the record, the Court found no material showing that respondent No. 2 had misused the concession of bail after her release. There was no specific allegation that she had absconded, contacted or intimidated witnesses, tampered with evidence, obstructed the trial or violated any condition imposed by the Sessions Court.
The grounds raised by the complainant primarily concerned the gravity and merits of the original allegations. These circumstances were available when the Sessions Court considered the bail application and could not be re-agitated without fresh or supervening material. The Court also found that the Sessions Court’s order was reasoned and reflected due application of judicial mind, particularly to the presentation of the challan, the likely duration of the trial and the fact that culpability remained to be established through evidence.
While declining to disturb the bail order, the High Court considered it appropriate to address the apprehension concerning foreign travel by directing respondent No. 2 to surrender her passport before the Trial Court.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition seeking to set aside the regular bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram. The accused was, however, directed to surrender her passport before the concerned Trial Court within seven days.