Pardeep vs State Of Haryana & Anr.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

Petition under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking setting aside/cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 and his consequential custody for the purpose of custodial interrogation, on the ground that the impugned order granting anticipatory bail is ex facie illegal, perverse, and legally unsustainable. The details of the FIR are as under:-

FIR No. 197 Date 12.07.2026 Police Station Israna District Panipat Sections 318(4) read with 61(2), BNS, 2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 has been granted without due appreciation of the material circumstances demonstrating that the dispute cannot be characterised as a matter simpliciter of civil nature. It is contended that the alleged civil proceedings are merely an eye-wash, particularly when the original agreement dated 27.06.2025 is stated to be in the possession of the petitioner, whereas respondent No.2 continues to retain a substantial amount of ₹76 lakhs belonging to the petitioner. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kurban vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 696. It is further submitted that the cheque issued towards repayment of the amount has been dishonoured. Learned counsel also draws attention to the financial trail evidencing payment of an amount of ₹2.68 crores by the petitioner, allegedly at the instance of respondent No.2 and her husband, into the bank account of co-accused Wazir. It is further contended that the complicity of respondent No.2 is prima facie borne out from the mobile-phone call recordings, accompanied by the transcript thereof and preserved in a pen-drive, reflecting conversations between respondent No.2, her husband and co-accused Wazir. According to learned counsel, respondent No.2 and her husband had represented to the petitioner that Wazir, being the original owner in possession of the property, was required to be involved in the proposed transaction and that payment of the sale consideration to him was necessary for its completion. The role attributed to respondent No.2 and her husband, according to learned counsel, assumes particular significance in the light of the recorded conversation between the husband of respondent No.2 and co-accused Wazir, wherein they allegedly discussed the amount paid by the petitioner and instructed Wazir to retain and appropriate the entire amount deposited by the petitioner in his bank account. It is, accordingly, contended that the custodial interrogation of respondent No.2 is warranted for a fair and effective investigation and that the anticipatory bail granted to her deserves to be cancelled. Learned counsel, accordingly, prays that the present petition be allowed and the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 be set aside/cancelled.

Notice of motion.

At this stage, upon advance notice, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. AG, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Haryana and opposes the petition. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has not committed any overt act warranting cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to her and that the allegations levelled against her are false, frivolous and motivated, having been raised solely with a view to exert pressure upon her. Dismissal of the present petition has, accordingly, been prayed for.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon meticulous scrutiny of the paper-book and the material placed on record, with their able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that the material relied upon by the petitioner does not disclose any supervening circumstance or other compelling ground warranting cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, while granting the concession of anticipatory bail, has recorded a finding that the dispute essentially emanates from a transaction of civil nature. It has been noticed that the complainant had entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No.2 and had paid earnest money of ₹1.75 crore, but the sale deed could not ultimately be executed as Wazir, stated to be the owner of the land and the person with whom respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement to purchase the property, did not execute the sale deed and instead transferred the land in favour of his wife and son. In such circumstances, the Court below found that the intention of respondent No.2-Kavita, at the time of entering into the agreement with the complainant, could not, be inferred to have been mala fide or actuated by an intention to defraud the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further noticed the stand of respondent No.2 that the original agreement executed by Wazir Singh in her favour had been handed over to the complainant and that the complainant was required to have the sale deed executed directly in his favour from Wazir. It was also noticed that an amount of ₹2.68 crore had been paid by the complainant to Wazir. The Court below, accordingly, observed that the complainant was at liberty to avail the appropriate civil remedy for recovery of the amount, as a criminal Court cannot be converted into an agency for recovery of money arising out of a disputed commercial or contractual transaction.

The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Kurban’s case (supra), is clearly distinguishable on its facts and does not advance the case of the petitioner in the present proceedings. The said decision was rendered in the context of the material circumstances obtaining therein, whereas the present petition is one seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail already granted to respondent No.2. The legal parameters governing cancellation of bail are materially different from those applicable while considering an application for grant of bail at the threshold. In the present case, therefore, the Court is not required to undertake a fresh consideration of the merits of the accusation as if examining an application for anticipatory bail in the first instance, but is required to ascertain whether the order granting such concession suffers from patent illegality, perversity or non-consideration of material circumstances of such nature as would justify its displacement, or whether any supervening circumstance has subsequently arisen warranting cancellation of the concession already granted.

It is well settled that cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. stands on a qualitatively different footing from refusal of bail at the threshold. The power of cancellation is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily only where the subsequent conduct of the accused demonstrates misuse of the concession, interference with the due course of justice, tampering with evidence, intimidation or influencing of witnesses, evasion of the process of law, violation of the conditions of bail, or where the order granting bail itself suffers from such patent perversity, arbitrariness or manifest legal infirmity as would vitiate the exercise of judicial discretion. The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCC 349, mandate the existence of very cogent, compelling and overwhelming circumstances before an order granting bail is displaced.

Tested on the aforesaid settled parameters, the material presently available on record does not establish that respondent No.2, after being enlarged on anticipatory bail, has misused the liberty so granted, interfered with the investigation or trial, tampered with the prosecution evidence, attempted to influence or intimidate any witness, evaded the process of law, or violated any condition imposed by the Court while granting her the concession of anticipatory bail. The allegations relied upon by the petitioner, even if taken at their face value, essentially relate to the underlying monetary and property transaction and do not, in the absence of any subsequent act amounting to misuse of the concession or obstruction of the administration of criminal justice, furnish sufficient ground for cancellation of bail within the limited parameters governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances emerging from the record, this Court is of the considered view that the stringent and well-settled threshold governing cancellation of bail has not been crossed. The material relied upon by the petitioner may, subject to proof and in accordance with law, constitute relevant material in the proceedings arising out of the underlying transaction; however, such material, in the factual matrix of the present case, does not disclose any supervening circumstance, misuse of the concession of bail, interference with the administration of justice, or other compelling circumstance warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has, therefore, failed to make out a case for displacement of the discretion already exercised in favour of respondent No.2. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the defence of the parties in the underlying criminal proceedings, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out. The present petition is, consequently, dismissed.

In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous and ancillary applications, if any, arising therefrom, are rendered infructuous and shall stand disposed of accordingly. In consequence of the substantive adjudication herein, no separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications.