Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mansi, Advocate and Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Sandeep Siwach, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) CRM-23340-2026 The instant application has been filed for placing on record the copy of bank statement in order to show the payment of Rs.7,15,000/- to the petitioner as Annexure A-1. For the reasons recorded in the application, the application is allowed. Annexure A-1 is taken on record. CRM-M-68597-2025

1. The instant petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C/483(3) of BNSS. has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 by this Court in CRM-M-61738-2024 vide order dated

03.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) in case FIR No.819 dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure CRM-M-68597-2025 (O&M) 2 P-1) under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Karnal Sadar, Karnal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025, passed in CRM-M-61738-2024 had extended the benefit of anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 in view of the settlement agreement dated 11.03.2025 arrived at between the parties before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court. As per the settlement agreement, respondent No.2 had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.9,45,000/- to the petitioner. Out of the said amount, Rs.2,30,000/- was paid, while the rest of the amount had to be paid on or before 12.09.2025 in different installments. It is submitted that the remaining amount, which totals to Rs.7,15,000/- has still not been paid to the petitioner. Furthermore, as per the settlement agreement, respondent No.2 had sought time to settle the issues pertaining to jewellery articles given by the parties and regarding the repayment of amount of $25000/- (USD). However, respondent No.2 has made no efforts to discuss the same with the petitioner, or to return the jewellery or repay the amount. Rather, respondent No.2 has been threatening the complainant, and pressurizing the witnesses to withdraw their statement. In fact he is even avoiding participation in the trial proceedings. He, therefore, submits that the bail granted to respondent No.2 deserves to be cancelled.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that as per the settlement arrived at between the parties, Rs.2,30,000/- was paid to the petitioner on 05.12.2025. It is submitted that the remaining amount of Rs.7,15,000/- has also been remitted to the petitioner through RTGS on 22.09.2025. Reliance in this regard has been CRM-M-68597-2025 (O&M) 3 placed on Annexure A-1, which is the bank statement of respondent No.2. As such, there is no cause of action necessitating the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2.

4. The learned State counsel reiterates that this Court, after due consideration of the facts of the case and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, had granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2.

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

6. As per the settled proposition of law, once bail has been granted, it would require cogent and overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. In this regard, a gainful reference can be made to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ms. X vs The State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511, wherein it was held that: “In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the 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.” These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench Hyderabad v decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, CRM-M-68597-2025 (O&M) 4