Sunder vs State of Haryana and another

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner seeking cancellation of the concession of regular bail granted to respondent No.2-Dal Chand alias Dalu by the learned Sessions Court, Rewari, vide order dated 15.10.2025 in FIR No.326 dated 03.10.2024, registered under Sections 103(1) and 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Kasola, District Rewari.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was got registered by the petitioner/complainant by alleging therein that he is the brother of deceased Hawa Singh. On 02.10.2024, Hawa Singh left his house at about 9:00 a.m. on his red electric scooter for farming work. As he did not return home by evening, the petitioner and other family members went out in search of him. At about 7:20 p.m., information was received that Hawa Singh's dead body and scooter had been found near the highway, opposite a petrol pump near Ananthraj Company. On reaching the spot, the dead body was found lying on the scooter, with a serious injury on the head. Near the place where the body was found, there was a deserted old tin shed in which blood stains and a substantial quantity of blood were noticed, along with scooter tyre marks and pieces of flesh. The petitioner alleged that, two days earlier, his brother Hawa Singh had a quarrel with Ravish alias Rabba and his associates and suspected their involvement in the occurrence. He also stated that the deceased used to wear a gold chain, which was found missing from his dead body.

During investigation, respondent No.2-Dal Chand alias Dalu was arrested on 06.10.2024. His disclosure statements were recorded and, pursuant thereto, the police recovered a motorcycle, blood-stained clothes, a gold-like chain and an axe from his residential premises on 08.10.2024. The respondent No.2 moved an application for grant of regular bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rewari and vide order dated 15.10.2025, he was granted concession of regular bail. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner/complainant has filed the present petition.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Court, Rewari, has erred in granting regular bail to respondent No.2 vide order dated 15.10.2025 despite the material available on record connecting him with the commission of the offence. It is submitted that the State had filed a detailed reply opposing the prayer for bail, but the order granting bail does not deal with all the grounds raised by the State. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation revealed that respondent No.2 and the deceased had spoken to each other on the mobile phone on the date of occurrence. It is contended that, in his disclosure statement dated 07.10.2024, respondent No.2 disclosed the alleged motive arising out of a monetary dispute of ₹1 lakh with the deceased. Respondent No.2 thereafter got recovered the weapon of offence, the gold chain belonging to the deceased and the clothes worn by him, which were stated to be blood-stained. It is argued that these circumstances constitute substantial material connecting respondent No.2 with the crime. However, the learned Sessions Court failed to give due consideration to these facts. There is, therefore, a possibility of the accused influencing or pressurizing the complainant after being released on bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the concession of bail granted to respondent No. 2 is liable to be withdrawn.

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that the allegations against respondent No. 2 were quite serious. Sufficient incriminating material had been collected against him during investigation. He is accused of committing a heinous crime. However, the learned Sessions Court granted him concession of bail erroneously. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which is based on true appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that none of the material prosecution witnesses has stated anything incriminating against him and the alleged connection is primarily sought to be established through call details. Learned counsel further submits that there is no motive attributable to respondent No.2. It is also submitted that respondent No.2 has remained in custody since 06.10.2024 and the trial is likely to take considerable time. His custodial interrogation was no more required. No condition of the grant of bail has been violated by the respondent No.2. He has never misused the concession of bail. No case is made out for cancellation of bail granted to him. Therefore, it is argued that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

Before delving into the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court consider 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 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.

In view of the proposition of law as laid down in the above discussed authorities, it is clear that the principles governing cancellation of bail are distinct from those applicable to consideration of an application for grant of bail. In the present case, the petitioner is essentially seeking a re-appreciation of the material which was already available before the learned Sessions Court at the time of consideration of the application for regular bail. The learned Sessions Court, while granting bail, took into consideration the fact that respondent No.2 had remained in custody since 06.10.2024, that the challan had already been presented, that the material witnesses examined till then had not supported the prosecution case against him and that the complainant was yet to be examined. The Court also noticed the recovery effected during investigation and the other material relied upon by the prosecution. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Court had completely ignored the relevant material while exercising its discretion. The mere fact that the allegations against respondent No.2 are serious or that there is material collected by the investigating agency connecting him with the alleged offence, by itself, cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail, particularly when such material was available and was considered at the time of grant of bail. The petitioner has also not been able to point out any supervening circumstance, misuse of the concession of bail, attempt to influence the witnesses, tampering with evidence or violation of any condition imposed by the learned Sessions Court. The apprehension expressed regarding the possibility of the complainant being pressurised, in the absence of any subsequent material demonstrating such conduct, cannot furnish sufficient ground for cancellation of bail. In view thereof, this Court does not find the impugned order to be suffering from such serious infirmity, perversity or disregard of relevant material as would warrant interference in exercise of the power under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the trial on merits.