Hakam Singh vs State of Punjab and others

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking setting aside of the orders dated 08.07.2025 and 21.07.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby respondents No.2 and 3 were granted anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.130 dated 14.06.2025, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala, and for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to them.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner/complainant alleging therein that he intended to purchase some agricultural land. Respondent No.2 Jaswinder Singh introduced him to respondent No.3 Pardeep Singh, who in turn introduced him to Amandeep Singh. The petitioner was shown the revenue record of land measuring about 28 bighas and 14 biswas situated at Village Sarala Kalan, Tehsil Ghanaur, District Patiala. It was represented to him that the land could be purchased at a comparatively low rate and thereafter sold at a higher price. It was further alleged that an Agreement to Sell dated 14.10.2024 was executed in respect of the land and the petitioner paid a total amount of Rs.55,00,000/- as earnest money on different dates. Respondents No.2 and 3 were present during the transaction and were also witnesses to the agreement. The respondents No.2 and 3 subsequently received Rs.20,00,000/- as their share and that the petitioner was neither given the sale deed nor refunded the amount. It was further alleged that the same land had already been the subject matter of earlier agreements to sell with other persons and that civil litigation regarding the property was also pending. It was also alleged that a stay order had been passed in respect of the property. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Apprehending their arrest, respondents No. 2 and 3 moved separate applications for grant of anticipatory bail, which were allowed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide impugned orders. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not properly appreciated the material available on record. The allegations against the private respondents were serious and that they had actively participated in the transaction pursuant to which the petitioner had been induced to part with Rs.55,00,000/-. It is further argued that the land in question had already been the subject matter of earlier transactions and civil litigation and that a stay order was also operating in respect of the property. However, despite having knowledge of the earlier transactions and litigation, respondents No.2 and 3, in connivance with the other accused, induced the petitioner to enter into the Agreement to Sell dated 14.10.2024. The custodial interrogation of respondents No.2 and 3 was necessary to trace the movement of the money, ascertain the role of the different accused and unearth the complete conspiracy. With these submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the concession of anticipatory bail granted to the private respondents is liable to be cancelled.

Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has submitted that respondents No.2 and 3 had joined the investigation on 06.08.2025 in compliance with the orders granting them anticipatory bail but their custodial interrogation was still required to ascertain the complete conspiracy, trace the flow and distribution of the cheated amount, verify their role in the different agreements to sell and confront them with the other accused and documentary evidence. Learned State counsel also argued that the original documents and other incriminating material connected with the offence were yet to be recovered and that the role of all the accused was still being examined. He, therefore, urged that the anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 and 3 is liable to be cancelled.

Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

Before delving into the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court considers it necessary to discuss certain principles which govern the cancellation of bail as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements. Reference can firstly be made to Myakala Dharmarajam vs. the State of Telangana : (2020) 2 SCC 743, wherein it was observed that an order for cancellation of bail can be made only where such order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Reliance can further be placed upon Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it was observed that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses) or likelihood of his absconding. It was also observed that whether to grant bail or not is a matter of discretion of the Court. Similar position of law had been laid down in Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana :1995 SCC (1) 349.

On applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is revealed that the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned orders which may warrant cancellation of the concession of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 and 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered the allegations as well as the material available on record while granting the said concession. It is not in dispute that respondents No.2 and 3 joined the investigation on 06.08.2025 in compliance with the impugned orders. There is no allegation that they have violated any condition of bail, tampered with the evidence, influenced any witness or otherwise misused the concession granted to them. No doubt, learned State counsel has argued that custodial interrogation of respondents No.2 and 3 was required for further investigation, however, mere requirement of custodial interrogation, in the absence of any misuse of the concession of bail or subsequent conduct warranting cancellation thereof cannot be a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail. The petitioner has also not been able to demonstrate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had ignored any relevant material or had taken into consideration any irrelevant material while granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents. Thus, no subsequent circumstance or supervening factor has been brought on record which may justify interference with the impugned orders.

In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 and 3. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, respondents No.2 and 3 shall continue to cooperate with the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer and shall abide by the conditions imposed while granting them anticipatory bail.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.