Pardeep vs State of Haryana and another

Petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.] seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in CIS No. BA-1299-2026, arising out of FIR No.197 dated 12.07.2026, registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Sections 420 and 120-B IPC], at Police Station Israna, Panipat, and consequently for directing respondent No.2 to be taken back into custody in accordance with law.

Brief facts of the present case are that the controversy arises from a transaction concerning agricultural land measuring approximately 80 kanals, originally owned and possessed by co-accused Wazir. The said Wazir entered into an agreement to sell dated 27.06.2025 in favour of Kavita, wife of respondent No.2-Vijender @ Raju, in respect of the aforesaid land.

Thereafter, having acquired contractual rights in the subject property, Kavita entered into a further Agreement to Sell dated 01.10.2025 with the petitioner/complainant and received substantial consideration thereunder. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner initially paid ₹1 crore to Kavita, comprising ₹69 lakh through cheques and ₹31 lakh in cash. Subsequently, ₹30 lakh was paid on 08.12.2025 and a further ₹45 lakh on 13.02.2026, aggregating to ₹1.75 crore paid to Kavita. In addition thereto, the petitioner directly transferred ₹2.68 crore to co-accused Wazir, towards the consideration for the subject transaction. The failure to honour the transaction despite receipt of the aforesaid substantial consideration ultimately culminated in registration of the present FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is substantial material connecting respondent No.2 with the alleged offence, including a mobile-phone recording wherein he is allegedly heard acknowledging that he had retained the complainant’s money and directing co-accused Wazir to retain the amount deposited in his account, assuring him of assistance. The petitioner had paid ₹1.75 crore to Kavita and ₹2.68 crore directly to Wazir, yet the sale deed was never executed; instead, the property was subsequently transferred to Wazir’s wife and son and the underlying agreement was cancelled.

It is contended that the aforesaid electronic evidence, substantial financial trail, subsequent property transfers and the pending investigation were not accorded due consideration while granting bail. The finding that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature overlooks the material indicating dishonest intention and concerted conduct. Since the investigation qua the co-accused and the financial/electronic evidence was still underway, respondent No.2’s continued liberty may prejudice a fair investigation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned bail order be set aside and respondent No.2 be remanded to custody.

Notice of motion.

Upon receipt of an advance copy of the petition along with the relevant documents, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Haryana. He has vehemently opposed the petition and submits that no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, dismissal of the present petition has been prayed for.

In view of the provisions of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., cancellation of bail stands on a distinct footing from refusal of bail at the threshold. Ordinarily, the discretionary power of cancellation is exercised only upon the existence of cogent, compelling and overwhelming circumstances demonstrating that the liberty granted to the accused has been misused or that the order granting bail suffers from manifest infirmity. The well-recognised grounds, inter alia, include:-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently maintained a clear doctrinal distinction between refusal of bail at the threshold and cancellation of bail already granted. As enunciated in Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCC 349, an order of cancellation cannot be made mechanically or merely because another view of the matter is possible; ordinarily, very cogent, compelling and overwhelming circumstances must be demonstrated. Cancellation is generally warranted where the accused has misused the liberty granted, interfered with the administration of justice, attempted to influence or intimidate witnesses, tampered with evidence, absconded or otherwise committed conduct warranting curtailment of such liberty, or where the order granting bail itself suffers from a patent infirmity going to the root of the exercise of discretion. The principal grounds are hereinbelow:-

The offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The petitioner has neither alleged nor demonstrated any misuse of the liberty granted to respondent No.2-accused, nor any supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of bail. The parameters governing cancellation under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. are distinct and narrower than those applicable at the stage of grant of bail, and none of the recognised grounds, supported by any cogent material, has been established in the present case. Mere apprehension, without substantiating material, cannot constitute a valid ground for cancellation. The alleged apprehension, if any, may appropriately be tested during trial upon appreciation of the evidence. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous and ancillary applications, if any, arising therefrom, shall stand disposed of accordingly. The substantive adjudication having rendered the reliefs sought therein infructuous, no separate or further orders are warranted.