Sunali v. State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 5. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 480(5) of BNSS, 2023 (Earlier Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.), is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 5 vide order dated 18.9.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by this Court in CRM-M-16312-2024, in case FIR No. 03 dated 05.1.2023, under Sections 323, 294, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and later on added Sections 307, 354 IPC, registered at Dugri, Ludhiana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the impugned order, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted the concession of anticipatory bail to respondent No. 5. However, after the grant of the said concession, respondent No. 5 along with other co-accused pelted stones at the house of the petitioner, recorded her video, and called goons upon her and her family. It is submitted that regarding the said GURPREET SINGH 2026.05.11 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh incidents, the petitioner has also moved complaints (Annexures P-6 to P-8) CRM-M-9599-2025 -2- before the authorities concerned, however, no action has been taken thereon. Therefore, it is submitted that since respondent No. 5 has violated the condition as mentioned in the relevant provisions, thus, the anticipatory bail granted to him deserves to be cancelled.

3. The learned State counsel while placing reliance on the status report dated 15.7.2025, submits that the allegations raised by the petitioner were duly inquired into and the statements of the statements of the present petitioner, accused Vinod Kumar and other respectable persons of the society, were recorded. However, the same were found to be false, and a detailed report qua the same was submitted by SHO, Dugri.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 opposes the present petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record with their able assistance.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that it was only after the due appreciation of facts, the petition filed by respondent No. 5 for grant of anticipatory bail, was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

18.9.2024. The petitioner has subsequently moved complaints Annexures P-6 to P-8 by levelling allegations against respondent No. 5 and other co- accused, for abusing her, making her video and extending threats to her. However, during inquiry, the said allegations were found to be without any basis.

7. At this juncture, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment passed in Ms. X vs The State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating the settled position of law with regard to cancellation of bail, held thus: GURPREET SINGH 2026.05.11 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh “In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the CRM-M-9599-2025 -3- distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349)] observed that: “Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. (Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”