Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reena vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:049882
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-14979-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.03.2025
***
Reena ... Petitioner
VS.
State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
****
Present: Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG Haryana
Mr. Pradeep Duhan, Advocate for respondents No.2,3&5
Mr. Vijay Deep Rathee, Advocate for respondent No.4
****
Sandeep Moudgil, J.
(1). This order shall dispose of CRM-M-14979-2023 and CRM-M-
15253-2023 as issues are interrelated. For the sake of order, CRM-M-14979-
2023 is treated as the lead case.
(2). By way of instant petition jurisdiction of this Court has been
sought to be invoked under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 CrPC
for cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 to 5 vide order dated
18.10.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak (Annexur P2) in case FIR
No.567 dated 03.10.2022 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC,
registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak (Annexure P1).
(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
lodged a complaint alleging that the respondents No.2 to 5 along with co-
accused persons had conspired and prepared a false and fabricated partnership
deed dated 21.07.2019 and sold 25% share in the firm to accused No.3 – Vipin
and without her permission and prior knowledge, respondents No.2 to 5 took
loan from APAC Financial Services P.Ltd. Mumbai and misused the funds.
(4). Mr. Sarvesh Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
respondents No.2 to 5 made wrong statement before the trial court by stating
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-04-2025 01:25:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:049882
CRM-M-14979-2023 -2-
that they had not taken any loan in the name of the firm and the trial court
wrongly relied upon the said averment inasmuch as the firm has obtained loan
amounting to Rs.1508531/- from APAC Financial Services P.ltd. as is evident
from Annexure P5 which shows that the name of the petitioner has been
mentioned as a borrower and even her fake signatures has been made. He then
submits that the above said fact is discernible from the notice (Annexure P6)
issued by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai on
account of proceedings initiated due to non-payment of instalments by
respondents No.2 to 5 towards the loan taken in the name of the petitioner.
(5). As regards the plea of cancellation of bail granted to the
respondents No.2 to 5, it is urged that the said accused persons have not been
cooperating with the police and have been avoiding the investigation under the
garb of bail order due to which the investigation is not progressing in the
manner it ought to be.
(6). Initially, on 13.12.2013, reply was filed by Sandeep Kumar, HPS,
DSP, Meham notarized on 21.11.2023 wherein it was averred that pursuant to
grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the respondents No.2 to 5, the said
accused persons had joined the investigation and has been questioned by the IO
and as and when the loan documents will be received from the APAC Financial
Services P.ltd., then they will be again called to join the investigation. It was
also averred that no complaint has ever been received by Rohtak Police about
the violation of the terms and conditions of the bail order by the said
respondents.
(7). As is evident from the order passed by this Court on 07.05.2024,
there was a request made by the State counsel seeking permission to withdraw
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-04-2025 01:25:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:049882
CRM-M-14979-2023 -3-
the replies filed by Sandeep Kumar in both the cases i.e. CRM-M-14979-2023
and CRM-M-15253-2023. However, this Court directed the State to move an
appropriate application giving the detailed reasons as to how the replies were
filed on 13.12.2023 and what is compelling the State to retreat its stance vide
replies so filed.
(8). In the meanwhile, respondents No.2 to 5 also filed CRM-43988-
2024 praying for filing separate reply on behalf of respondent No.4 though at
one point of time on 13.12.2023, counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 had made a
statement that the said respondents do not wish to file reply. Be that as it may,
it has been averred by the accused/respondents that the petitioner has sought to
give a civil dispute a criminal cloak and at best, the dispute relates to mere
breach of duties under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
(9). He submits that respondent No.4 is cooperating with the police in
terms of the bail order and that nothing is left to be recovered from him as he
has already supplied whatever has been sought by the police. It is further
averred that the State, under the pressure and influence of the husband of the
petitioner who is a serving DSP, has decided to retract from the reply so filed
on 13.12.2023 and no words have been minced in response to the explanation
sought by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2024 for withdrawing their reply.
(10). Heard learned counsel for the parties. (11). Though, there exists no straight jacket formula to assess the
application for grant or rejection of bail but determination of whether a case is
fit for grant of bail or not involves balancing of numerous factors among which
nature of offence, severity of punishment and prima facie view of the
involvement of accused are of utmost importance. In the instant application the
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-04-2025 01:25:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:049882
CRM-M-14979-2023 -4-
grounds taken by the petitioner are solely based on factual aspects touching the
merits of the case, which have not been considered by the trial Court while
granting bail to respondent No.2 to 5 vide impugned order dated 18.10.22
(Annexure P-2). I am of the firm view that very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances or ground are required to cancel the bail already granted.
Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an
order granting bail cannot be interfered with under Section 439(2) CrPC. While
considering the petition for cancellation of bail, a Court shall bear in mind
that:-
(a) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal
activity,
(b) interferes with the course of investigation,
(c) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses,
(d) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which
would hamper smooth investigation,
(e) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country,
(f) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or
becoming unavailable to the Investigating Agency and
(g) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
(12). It is thus clear before this Court that when a person to whom bail
has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to
tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar
activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be
cancelled.
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-04-2025 01:25:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:049882
CRM-M-14979-2023 -5-
(13). The Supreme Court of India in Bhuribai vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956 elaborating the powers of the Court for
cancellation of bail held that it cannot be approached as in case of any
disciplinary proceedings against an accused and such power of cancellation of
bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection and such
cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on part of
accused before granting bail.
(14). In the case in hand, after examining the arguments and the order
of granting regular bail (Annexure P-2), it cannot be inferred from the reasons
seeking cancellation of bail as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that respondents No.2 to 5 had misused the liberty or had violated any of the
conditions as envisaged under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(15). The ground taken by the petitioner that the State in its latest reply
has come up with a stand that earlier at the time of filing the earlier reply, the
investigation of the case was pending and it has been found that the
accused/respondents No.2 to 5 had obtained the loan from the APFC Financial
Services P.Ltd. and the original loan papers have been received, therefore, for
the recovery of the original partnership deed dated 21.07.2019 and to know the
names of other persons so involved as also to verify the details of other
banks/financial institutions from which the respondents No.2 to 5 have had
obtained loan on the basis of the said forged partnership deed.
(16). Bail, while a right, is not absolute. If the accused violates any of
the conditions on which bail was granted, or engages in activities that hamper
investigation, the bail can be revoked. If it is proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused, who was granted bail, has misused it by interfering with the
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-04-2025 01:25:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:049882
CRM-M-14979-2023 -6-
course of justice in any manner, such as the accused’s actions in interfering
with the administration of justice, attempting to tamper with witnesses, and
jeopardising a fair trial, it would be deemed sufficient grounds for the
cancellation of bail. However, the complainant could have explicitly advanced
this plea by placing cogent and credible evidence on record before this Court,
eschewing vague and frivolous assertions. So much so, there is no
substantiation by the State, in its reply, to even remotely corroborate that the
accused persons/respondents are avoiding investigation or are not cooperating
the investigating agency. Had it been so, it would be the State who had
approached this Court, at the first instance, highlighting the conduct of the
respondents No.2 to 5 in hampering and stalling the process of investigation
post grant of bail by the trial court. That being not the state of affairs at this
moment, the petitioner/complainant cannot be said to aggrieve in any manner
whatsoever.
(17). In view of the above discussion, this petition is devoid of merit
and is accordingly dismissed.
19.03.2025 (Sandeep Moudgil)
V.Vishal
Judge
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 12-04-2025 01:25:56 :::