Dlf Limited vs State Of Haryana And Another
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M)
Reserved on: 14.10.2026
Pronounced on: 13.11.2026
Uploaded on: 13.11.2026
DLF Limited …..Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Argued By: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate
Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Anand, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kartikeya, Advocate
Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate and
Mr. Prince Bharol, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Shrenik Jain, Advocate
Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate
Mr. Haripal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
The petitioner (DLF Limited) has instituted the
present petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as `the BNSS’)
seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No. 2
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [2]
(Ramesh Sanka) vide order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure-P1)
passed by a Coordinate Bench in CRM-M-45319-2025.
2. On a complaint submitted by the petitioner, FIR No.
253 dated 08.08.2024 was registered at Police Station, DLF
Phase 1, Gurugram, under Sections 381, 385, 409, 506 IPC and
Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000.
2.1 As per the allegations in the FIR, respondent No. 2
was appointed as Chief Financial Officer of the petitioner-
Company on 01.06.2004. He was later on made the Group Chief
Financial Officer. Subsequently, he was elevated to the position
of Managing Director of DLF Cyber City Developers Limited. He
remained associated with the petitioner-Company with effect
from 01.06.2004 till 02.07.2014.
2.2 During the course of his employment, respondent No.
2 is stated to have agreed to adhere to the Code of Conduct of
the Company and had executed the relevant documents in this
regard. As per the petitioner, by virtue of his senior management
position of trust and fiduciary nature, respondent No. 2 was
entrusted with the sensitive data of the Company and had free
access to all the data, books and records whereby he was
exposed to the vital and significant business information, trade
secrets, documents, including but not limited to electronic
devices, servers, e-mails, information of confidential and
proprietary nature, documents, agreements, financial
statements relating to business affairs and data, land holding
details, customer data, costing and pricing details, details of
significant transactions and business of the petitioner-Company
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [3]
and its operations along with all other related and incidental
documents.
2.3 It was alleged that as per the terms and conditions
set out in Clause 11 of the appointment letter dated 01.06.2004,
respondent No. 2 was under a specific contractual obligation to
maintain, inter-alia , the confidentiality in respect of any
information, secrets, accounts or dealings relating to the
organizational business and its affairs etc., and was not
permitted to share the same with anyone else.
2.4 It was further alleged that respondent No. 2 had
started blackmailing the petitioner-Company by threatening to
misuse/leak their confidential data with a view to extort a sum
of Rs. 311 crores. It is the case of the petitioner-Company that
respondent No.2 had been threatening/intimidating the
petitioner-Company that he would misuse and leak the
confidential data stolen by him during his employment and
stated to be in his possession and control.
2.5 Pursuant to registration of the FIR, respondent No.2
was arrested on 03.01.2025.
2.6 Vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench in CRM-M-45139-2025 (Annexure P1), he was granted
regular bail. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to
regular bail having been granted, he started instituting one case
after the other in different High Courts and the Apex Court. It is
the case of the petitioner that in these petitions, respondent
No.2 has again started leaking confidential information with a
view to influence, threaten and intimidate the petitioner and the
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [4]
prosecution witnesses, which is in violation of the conditions
laid down in the order dated 09.12.2025 vide which he was
granted regular bail.
2.7 Details of the cases instituted in the Apex Court, the
Delhi High Court, the Telangana High Court and the Madras
High Court were given during the course of hearing, which shall
be referred at the relevant stage, if so required.
2.8 The petitioner, therefore, seeks cancellation of the
bail granted to respondent No.2.
3. In the reply filed by the State of Haryana (respondent
No.1), essentially the factual background has been given, which
led to the registration of the FIR.
3.1 It has been averred that the antecedents of
respondent No.2 are not clean for, five other FIRs stand
registered against him.
3.2 Details of the recoveries made from respondent No.2,
pursuant to his arrest in the present case, have also been given
in the reply as thus:
“J. T hat the Respondent No.2 was arrested on
03.01.2025 and during the course of investigation,
recovery was effected from him, wherein, Two
Laptops, One Mobile Phone and One hard disk were
seized by investigation agency and same were
deposited at DITAC Lab for data extraction. That
the examination report regarding recoveries made
was received on 21.08.2025 downloaded in a hard
disk. Total size of data extracted from the
mentioned devices is as under:
a. Laptop 1: 7,48,29,58,359 bytes
b. Laptop 2: 7,09,51,64,40,887 bytes
c. Hard Disk: 1,91,60,58,65,248 bytes
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [5]
d. Mobile Phone: 4,14,66,81,757 bytes
The Data is being analyzed and it has been
found that various files and secret & confidential
documents of Complainant Company like as
business plan, agreements, building structure,
company share capital, business transaction,
confidential mails etc. were subject matter of
content downloaded in the hard disk. After
analyzing the complete data supplementary charge
sheet will be submitted before the Ld. Trial Court.”
3.3 It has been averred that pursuant to filing of the final
report, further investigation is underway. The reply states that
after prima-facie analysis of the data recovered from the hard
disk, it appears that the same contains confidential record of the
petitioner-Company.
3.4 Details of the litigation initiated by respondent No.2
have also been given. It has been averred that respondent No.2
has wilfully violated and breached the conditions imposed by the
Coordinate Bench while granting regular bail to him and the
confidential information and material is being deliberately
misused in complete defiance of the mandate issued by the
Court. The State has, therefore, averred that the said facts
warrant reconsideration of the concession of bail.
4. The petition has been opposed by respondent No.2. A
short reply was initially filed. It has been averred that a plea of
cancellation of bail should not be considered mechanically and
there have to be strong reasons, not only averred, but proved
beyond reasonable doubt, that bail is liable to be cancelled. It
has been averred that bail can be cancelled only where an
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [6]
accused misuses the liberty granted to him or tries to influence
the witnesses, repeats the offence, where there is likelihood of
accused absconding, but it should not be cancelled mechanically
or on a mere change of opinion or re-appreciation of facts, just
because another view was possible, in view of the gravity of the
offence.
4.1 It is the stand of respondent No.2 that he had
resigned from the petitioner-Company on 02.07.2014 and even
as per the allegations levelled by the petitioner, he had no
control over the documents/confidential information or sensitive
data after 02.07.2014 and that the fusion petition filed in the
High Court of Delhi includes many documents after 02.07.2014.
It has been averred that the answering respondent i.e.
respondent No.2 has not misused any documents/confidential
information or sensitive data. It has been averred that the
petition filed in the Delhi High Court is still in objections and no
such document has been used by respondent No.2 which can be
alleged to be confidential in nature.
4.2 It is the case of respondent No.2 that mere usage of
documents for filing a writ petition in a Court of law cannot be
termed as misuse of confidential data; most of the data is
already a part of the final report submitted in FIR No. 253; the
charge-sheet includes all the mails that the answering
respondent had exchanged with the Chairman/Managing
Director of the petitioner-Company after leaving the petitioner-
Company and 32 lakh pages of e-mails in softcopies/hard disk
of the petitioner-Company; the petitioner has failed to aver and
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [7]
prove us as to how the filing of a writ petition alone or annexing
such documents had prejudiced the interests of the petitioner-
Company; whether the filing of a writ petition depicted
misuse/abuse of the process to gain illegal benefits from the
promoters of the petitioner and whether the same could be
termed as misuse of data or tampering with evidence or use of
documents against the petitioner-Company.
4.3 Both sides have averred a number of other facts
which are not relevant for the purpose of decision of the present
petition and therefore, they are not being discussed while
detailing the facts. However, due reference shall be made to
them at the relevant place, if so required.
4.4 Another reply to the application for placing on record
the documents had been filed. However, subsequently, both
sides placed on record various documents which were ordered to
be taken on record subject to just exceptions.
5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
6. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior counsel
representing the petitioner referred to the allegations in the FIR
and the contents of the order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P.1)
vide which regular bail was granted to respondent No.2. The
operative part of the said order was referred to in particular and
then reference was made to the averments made in the petition
along with the documents annexed therewith, including the
documents placed on record subsequently. The gist of the
arguments is that respondent No.2 committed wilful violation of
the conditions imposed upon him by the Coordinate Bench while
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [8]
granting regular bail to him and as such the said facts, warrant
cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.2.
6.1 It was submitted that no challenge had been laid to
the conditions imposed in the order dated 09.12.2025 and,
therefore, the same had attained finality. However, immediately
after having been released on bail, respondent No.2 initiated a
string of litigation against the petitioner only with a view to
induce, threaten, intimidate and influence the petitioner and the
prosecution witnesses.
6.2 Reference was made to the contents of the
petitions/applications filed before the Apex Court; the Delhi
High Court, the Telangana High Court and the Madras High
Court.
6.3 Reference was also made to the observations made by
the Delhi High Court and the Telangana High Court against the
petitioner, while dismissing his petitions.
6.4 It was submitted that in the Delhi High Court,
though a petition was filed but the same was not got registered
and is still lying in the objections, which clearly shows that the
only attempt of respondent No.2 is to threaten and intimidate
the petitioner.
6.5 It was submitted that deliberately, cases are being
filed but are not being got listed only with a view to intimidate
and threaten the petitioner. Details of suits/petitions/
applications filed were given during the course of arguments.
6.6 It was submitted that in a matter with the SEBI,
while the SEBI challenged an order in appeal in which
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [9]
respondent No.2 was not even a party since the Appellate
Authority had decided the petition in favour of respondent No.2,
deliberately an application was filed before the Apex Court, again
leaking the confidential information clearly with a view to
intimidate and threaten the petitioner.
6.7 It was submitted that intimidation in the present
case is of a new kind, being resorted to by misusing the data,
which is in possession of respondent No.2 by virtue of an
important position held by him in the petitioner-Company. It
was submitted that respondent No.2 duly stated before the Delhi
High Court that he was a whistleblower.
6.8 The arguments were concluded by submitting that
respondent No.2 had been granted regular bail subject to certain
conditions, which he is duty bound to fulfill and follow. It was
submitted that though it was stated before the Coordinate
Bench that all the digital data had been recovered, it is clear
that some data had been retained by respondent No.2, which is
again being misused by him. It was submitted that even if some
data is a part of the final report, it cannot be used in public
proceedings for, a final report is not a public document.
7. Mr. R.S. Rai, learned Senior Counsel supplemented
the arguments addressed by Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate.
It was submitted that when the matter was investigated by the
police, 32 lakh digital files were recovered from the hard-disk of
respondent No.2. It was submitted that it was under the said
circumstances that specific conditions were imposed. Learned
Senior counsel referred to the order granting bail and submitted
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [10]
that the directions of the Coordinate Bench were categoric, since
the Bench was aware of the nature of the documents, which
were filed with the charge-sheet and the documents that were
annexed by respondent No.2.
7.1 It was submitted that in the I.A. filed by respondent
No.2 before the Apex Court, it had, in so many words, been
averred that respondent No.2 was in possession of the data by
virtue of his employment with the petitioner-Company.
7.2 Learned Senior counsel also referred to the various
cases instituted by respondent No.2 in the Apex Court and
different High Courts. Details of the cases which had been
withdrawn, or are still lying in objections and some cases having
already been dismissed, were pointed out.
7.3 It was submitted that the entire blackmailing was to
extort a sum of Rs.311 crores from the petitioner.
7.4 Learned Senior Counsel concluded his arguments by
stating that since there is wilful violation of the conditions of bail
as laid down by the Coordinate Bench, the same is liable to be
cancelled.
7.5 In support of their contentions, reliance was placed
upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Saurav Das Vs. Union
of India and Others, (2023) 11 SCC 154; Rakesh Mittal Vs.
Ajay Pal Gupta alias Sonu Chaudhary and Another, 2026
SCC OnLine SC 211; State of Bihar and Another Vs. Amit
Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751 and Gulabrao
Baburao Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013)
16 SCC 190.
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [11]
8. In so far as the State is concerned, only the factual
position was given during the course of arguments.
9. On behalf of respondent No.2, it was strenuously
urged by Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate that there is
absolutely no case for cancellation of bail. It was submitted that
cancellation of bail is an extreme measure and before resorting
to the same, the Court has to be completely satisfied about the
wilful violation of the conditions on which bail was granted.
9.1 The basic stand taken during the course of
arguments was that the documents being referred to or relied
upon by respondent No.2 in different cases instituted by him
are also a part of the final report and, therefore, it cannot, by
any stretch of imagination, be said that any confidential
information was being leaked.
9.2 It was submitted that availing legal remedies can
never be said to be misuse of the conditions of bail and
respondent No.2 would be well within his right to avail his legal
remedies.
9.3 It was submitted that respondent No.2 was granted
bail after having suffered incarceration for about 11 months, he
having been arrested on 03.01.2025 and having been granted
regular bail on 09.12.2025. It was submitted that in a case
triable by the Court of a Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, even if the
petitioner is convicted, there may not be imposition of a sentence
beyond one year, which, in any case, the petitioner has already
undergone as an under-trial.
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [12]
9.4 It was submitted that the matter had been argued by
the petitioner as if it is a case of treason. It was submitted that
the e-mails exchanged between the petitioner and respondent
No.2 and allegedly to be in possession of respondent No.2,
cannot be said to be confidential documents. It was submitted
that there is no averment by the petitioner nor any argument
has been raised, to even prima-facie suggest that the allegations
levelled in the petitions instituted by respondent No.2 are false.
9.5 It was submitted that as is clear from the record,
respondent No.2 had been doing job work for the petitioner-
Company even after he had formally demitted office and for the
said purpose, he is legally claiming Rs.311 crores and only with
a view to intimidate and pressurize respondent No.2, the FIR
was got registered against him. It was submitted that even the
supplementary challan had been filed only with a view to favour
the petitioner-Company and the same had been done without
the prior permission of the Court concerned. Learned Senior
counsel also referred to the order granting bail and submitted
that there has been no violation of the conditions imposed
therein.
9.6 It was submitted that no details were given in the
bail order nor was it specified in the petition seeking cancellation
of bail as to which particular data was being misused or was not
a part of the final report. It was submitted that in judicial
proceedings, only e-mails between the parties were used and
respondent No.2 has every right to avail his legal remedies. It
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [13]
was submitted that bail cannot be cancelled on the mere asking
of the petitioner as it has very harsh consequences.
9.7 In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel
placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Dolat
Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349; Deepak Yadav
Vs. State of UP, (2022) 8 SCC 559; Gurcharan Singh Vs.
State (Delhi Admn), (1978) 1 SCC 118; X Vs. State of
Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511; Himanshu Sharma Vs. State
of MP, (2024) 4 SCC 222 and Puran Vs. Rambilas, (2001) 6
SCC 338 and the judgment of this High Court in Gurmit Kaur
Vs. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 26909.
10. I have considered the submissions made by learned
Senior counsel for the parties.
11. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be
apposite to refer to the law on the subject.
12. One of the earliest views as regards cancellation of
bail was taken by the Apex court in the case of Dolat Ram
(supra) , in which the Apex Court held as thus:-
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted,
have to be considered and dealt with on different
basis. Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order directing
the cancellation of the bail, already granted.
Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of
bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are:
interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice or evasion or
attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse
of the concession granted to the accused in any
manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [14]
of material placed on the record of the possibility of
the accused absconding is yet another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether
any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused
to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of
bail during the trial. These principles, it appears,
were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided
to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court
it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the
factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable
case in the first instance and the cancellation of
bail already granted.”
13. It is evident that there have to be cogent and
overwhelming circumstances to form an opinion that bail
deserves to be cancelled. The Apex Court listed certain
circumstances, which could assist the Court in arriving at such
conclusion and the said circumstances are, i) interference or
attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of
justice or evasion; or ii) attempt to evade the due course of
justice; or iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in
any manner and iv) the possibility of the accused absconding. It
was held by the Apex Court that bail once granted should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering any
supervening circumstances rendering it no longer conducive to a
fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying
the concession of bail during the trial.
14. The aforesaid principles have consistently been
reiterated by the Apex Court as also by this Court.
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [15]
15. In a recent judgment in Abhimanue etc. etc. Vs.
State of Kerala, 2025 AIR SC 4439 , the Apex Court reiterated
the said principles and held as under:-
“15. We are unable to agree with this argument.
We note that, in the present case, the application
before the High Court was filed under “Section 482
r/w 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure”.
Thatbeing the case, nothing prevented the High
Court from exercising its inherent powers.
16. We now propose to proceed with our
discussion on the other aspects of the case.
17. Law is well settled that cancellation of bail is
distinct from revocation of an order granting bail.
Bail may be cancelled when the accused violates
any of the conditions imposed. On the other hand,
an order granting bail can be revoked if such an
order is found to be perverse or illegal. In P v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, a three-judge Bench of this
Court, after analyzing various previous decisions,
discussed the distinction between the two. Relevant
paragraphs of the decision are reproduced below:
“21. Echoing the above principle, in Ranjit
Singh v. State of M.P. [Ranjit Singh v. State of
M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 797 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri)
405], it has been held thus:
“19. … There is also a distinction between the
concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal
or perverse order and cancellation of an order
of bail on the ground that the accused has
misconducted himself or certain supervening
circumstances warrant such cancellation. If
the order granting bail is a perverse one or
passed on irrelevant materials, it can be
annulled by the superior court.
22. In Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir
Chaudhary [Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul
Kadir Chaudhary, (2014) 10 SCC 754 : (2015)
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [16]
1 SCC (Cri) 257], this Court has opined that:
(SCC p. 763, para 19)
“19. Therefore, the concept of setting aside
an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is
different from the concept of cancellation of a
bail on the ground of accused's misconduct
or new adverse facts having surfaced after the
grant of bail which require such cancellation
and a perusal of the aforesaid decisions
would present before us that an order
granting bail can only be set aside on
grounds of being illegal or contrary to law by
the court superior to the court which granted
the bail and not by the same court.”
*
24. As can be discerned from the above
decisions, for cancelling bail once granted,
the court must consider whether any
supervening circumstances have arisen or
the conduct of the accused post grant of bail
demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to
a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom
by enjoying the concession of bail during trial
[Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC
349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it
differently, in ordinary circumstances, this
Court would be loathe to interfere with an
order passed by the court below granting bail
but if such an order is found to be illegal or
perverse or premised on material that is
irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible
to scrutiny and interference by the appellate
court.
25. Some of the circumstances where bail
granted to the accused under Section 439(1)
CrPC can be cancelled are enumerated below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in
similar/other criminal activity;
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [17]
(b) If he interferes with the course of
investigation;
(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the
witnesses;
(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court
proceedings;
(f) If he indulges in activities which would
hamper smooth investigation;
(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by
going underground and/or becoming
unavailable to the investigating agency;
(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the
reach of his surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of
bail which are considered unconducive to a
fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only
illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.
(emphasis ours)”
16. A Three Judges Bench judgment of the Apex Court
also examined the entire law on the issue of cancellation of bail
in the case of Deepak Yadav (supra) . After examining the law
on the subject, including the judgments the cases of Dolat
Ram (supra); Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P., (2014)16 SCC
508 and Prakash Kadam Vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta,
(2011)6SCC 189 , the Apex Court held as under:-
“31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that
bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his
freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial.
Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [18]
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for
an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already
granted).
32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram And
Others v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 laid down
the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:-
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of Justice;
(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of
justice;
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused
in any manner;
(iv) Possibility of accused absconding;
(v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;
(vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the
evidence or threatening witnesses.
33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot
be limited to the occurrence of supervening
circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent
powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused
even in the absence of supervening circumstances.
Following are the illustrative circumstances where the
bail can be cancelled:
33.1 Where the court granting bail takes into account
irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial
nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
33.2 Where the court granting bail overlooks the
influential position of the accused in comparison to the
victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is
prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.
33.3 Where the past criminal record and conduct of the
accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
33.4 Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
33.5 Where serious discrepancies are found in the order
granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
33.6 Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the
first place given the very serious nature of the charges
against the accused which disentitles him for bail and
thus cannot be justified.
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [19]
33.7 When the order granting bail is apparently
whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the
given case.
34. In Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another,
(2014) 16 SCC 508 , the accused was granted bail by the
High Court. In an appeal against the order of the High
Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the
precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and
observed as under (SCC p.513 para 12):
"12 .It is well settled in law that cancellation
of bail after it is granted because the accused has
misconducted himself or of some supervening
circumstances warranting such cancellation have
occurred is in a different compartment altogether
than an order granting bail which is unjustified,
illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors
which should have been taken into consideration
while dealing with the application for bail and have
not been taken note of bail or it is founded on
irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior
court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail.
Such a case belongs to a different category and is in
a separate realm. While dealing with a case of
second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the
violation of conditions by the accused or the
supervening circumstances that have happened
subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the
justifiability and the soundness of the order passed
by the Court"
(emphasis supplied).
35. This Court in Mahipal (Supra) held that:
"17. Where a court considering an application
for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an
appellate court may justifiably set aside the order
granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to
consider whether the order granting bail suffers
from a non-application of mind or is not borne out
from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It
is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether,
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [20]
on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed
a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the crime, also taking
into account the seriousness of the crime and the
severity of the punishment."
36. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam
And Others v. Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta And
Another, (2011) 6 SCC 189 held that: (SCC p.195, paras
18-19)
"18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the
court has also to consider the gravity and nature of
the offence, prima facie case against the accused,
the position and standing of the accused, etc. if
there are serious allegations against the accused,
his bail may be cancelled even if he has not
misused the bail granted to him. 19. In our opinion,
there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to
the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is
likelihood of misuse of bail. that factor, though no
doubt important, is not the only factor. There are
several other factors also which may be seen while
deciding to cancel the bail."
17. Reverting to the facts of the case, the FIR (Annexure
P.1) was registered largely with the allegations of threats by
respondent No.2 of misusing or leaking the confidential data of
the petitioner-Company and thereby making an attempt to extort
a sum of Rs.311 crores from it.
18. The operative part of the order granting bail to the
petitioner reads as thus:-
“12. I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the paper book and the
material placed on record. Admittedly, the present
FIR was lodged after a considerable lapse of time
from the cessation of employment which was in the
year 2014. The allegations levelled against the
petitioner are substantially founded on a series of
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [21]
emails and communications sent by him to the
complainant company, in which he is alleged to
have demanded an amount of Re 311 crores and to
have threatened disclosure of confidential
corporate information. The petitioner, however,
asserts that these communications were no more
than reminders and assertions related to his
professional advisory fees in respect of various
transactions, including the land acquisition
undertaken by Complainant company.
13. The rival contentions reveal that while the
prosecution attributes criminal intent, the defence
projects the issue as one of the contractual dues
arising from advisory services. Whether the said
emails, viewed in their entirety and in the context of
the parties prior dealings, satisfied the statutory
ingredients of "extortion" under Section 383 IPC or
whether they merely reflect a civil and contractual
dispute relating to professional remuneration is a
question that can be determined only after the
parties have led evidence in the course of trial.
14. At this stage, without commenting on the
merits, it is noticed that custodial interrogation is
complete. It is not in dispute that all documents
and electronic devices alleged to contain
confidential information have been seized, forensic
examination has been conduced, the challan
(charge sheet) stands presented, and 15 witnesses
have been cited. The State has not demonstrated
that any further recovery remains to be effected
from the petitioner. The petitioner has remained in
custody since 03.01.2025, and further
incarceration, in the circumstances of the case,
would serve no useful purpose. 15. As regards the
contention that petitioner is involved in other/more
criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana
Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [22]
that the facts and circumstances of the present
case are to be seen while deciding a bail application
and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be
rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is
involved in other/another case(s). The relevant
portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-
below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely
on the basis of criminal antecedents,
the claim of the second respondent
cannot be rejected. In other words, it is
the duty of the Court to find out the
role of the accused in the case in which
he has been charged and other
circumstances such as possibility of
fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the
Court etc."
16. In view of the above, the present petition is
allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released
on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that the
petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make an
attempt to influence, threaten, induce, or
intimidate the complainant, the prosecution
witnesses, or any person acquainted with the facts
of the case. He shall not tamper with the evidence
in any manner. If the petitioner is in possession of
any confidential data of the complainant-company,
he shall not misuse the same. The petitioner shall
also not leave the country without the prior
permission of the learned trial court and shall
furnish his mobile number and current residential
address to the Investigating Officer.....”
19. After respondent No.2 was released on bail, he
instituted a number of cases against the petitioner-Company,
which included an I.A. in the Apex Court filed on 03.06.2026 in
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [23]
which a number of documents, including emails, circulars,
transfer, lease deeds etc., were annexed. The said I.A. was filed
in an appeal filed by the SEBI stating that the I.A. was being
filed so that the petitioner could not, at his back, get some
proceedings initiated against him. Then there were cases
instituted before the Delhi High Court, the Telangana High
Court and the Madras High Court. Certain cases are still
pending, whereas others were decided. In all cases, such
documents were annexed. All petitions have been perused.
20. In some cases, certain observations were also made
by the Telangana High Court and the Delhi High Court against
the petitioner that the litigation was the result of a private
vendetta and that under the guise of public interest, respondent
No.2 was trying to settle personal scores.
21. Apart from the afore-stated litigation, no other action
initiated by respondent No.2 has been brought to the notice of
the Court.
22. Having considered the arguments addressed by
learned Senior counsel for the parties and the law on the
subject, the question which arises for consideration of this Court
is as to whether respondent No.2 can be said to have violated
the conditions of bail warranting its cancellation. The answer to
the said question is definitely in the negative.
23. No doubt, respondent No.2 appears to be having the
tendencies of a blackmailer. He for sure, is not a saint. On
account of that, the FIR in question stands registered against
him. He was incarcerated for 11 months before being bailed out.
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [24]
The trial is pending in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate, Ist
Class.
24. It is also not in doubt that certain observations have
been made against him by different Courts. However, the fact
remains that respondent No.2 had resorted to only instituting
certain petitions before the Apex Court and different High Courts
alleging, inter alia , evasion of tax etc. and other violations by the
petitioner.
25. In the considered opinion of this Court, resorting to
legal remedies cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to
be an act which may be termed to be a violation of the
conditions of bail or which may amount to inducing,
threatening, intimidating or influencing the petitioner and/or
the prosecution witnesses.
26. It has to be borne in mind that respondent No.2 is
yet to be put to trial. Similarly, the petitions instituted by him
shall be tried by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. No opinion
can be formed at this stage as regards the veracity of the
allegations in the FIR got registered by the petitioner against
respondent No.2 or the cases instituted by respondent No.2
against the petitioner.
27. It also has to be borne in mind that cancellation of
bail is a very drastic measure and cannot and should not be
resorted to in a mechanical manner.
28. Having considered the matter in its entirety and
having gone through the contents of the FIR and the order dated
09.12.2025 granting bail to the petitioner, the petitions
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-6656-2026 (O&M) [25]
instituted by respondent No.2 and the arguments addressed by
learned Senior Counsel for the parties, this Court does not find
it to be a case of cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2,
at this stage.
29. In view of the above, the present petition is found to
be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
13.11.2026 JUDGE
ds
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.13 18.41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document