Aarti Malhotra vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
210

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision : 31.10.2026
Aarti Malhotra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rishabh Choudhary, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.

*

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the complainant for
cancellation of the regular bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated
07.03.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge,
Faridabad, in case arising out of FIR No.64 dated 25.02.2022, registered
under Section 306 of IPC at Police Station BPTP, Faridabad, with a further
prayer for a direction to respondent No.1 to take respondent No.2 into
custody.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this petition
are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of the
petitioner, who is a divorcee and was working as a teacher in Delhi Public
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 2
School, Sector 81, Faridabad. Her son, the deceased/victim, was a student of
Class X in the same school. On 24.02.2022 at about 6:00 PM, she had gone to
meet her father in Sector 23, Faridabad, while the deceased was alone at
home. At about 9:00 PM, she received a call from a neighbour that her son
had jumped from the building. He was taken to Sarvodaya Hospital,
Faridabad, where he was found to be dead. The petitioner alleged that about a
year earlier, the deceased had told her about some boys of the school who
teased him by calling him 'gay' and bullied him. She had complained to the
school about it, but no action was taken. For some days prior to the
occurrence, the deceased was in depression and was taking treatment at
Delhi.
3. As per the further allegations, on 23.02.2022, the deceased was
taking his Science examination. Since he was suffering from dyslexia, he
could not solve a numerical question and sought help from respondent No.2,
who is the Headmistress of the school. Instead of helping him, respondent
No.2 told him that he was taking benefit of his illness and the mother and son
were creating a scene. She is also alleged to have told him that she would not
promote him to the next class. As per the allegations, the deceased remained
under immense stress thereafter and felt that his mother's job was also at
stake because of him. She held the school management responsible for the
death of her son and handed over a suicide note left by him to the police. A
copy of the suicide note has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.
4. Respondent No.2 was arrested on 27.02.2022. Her application
for regular bail was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide
the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 by observing that as per the suicide, the
school had killed the deceased, including respondent No.2 and others but no
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 3
specific incident of harassment has been pointed out therein. The incident of
23.02.2022 also does not find mention in the suicide note. It was further
noticed that as per the reply of the police, after going through the CCTV
footage, respondent No.2 had not entered the examination hall on that day.
The learned Sessions Judge also took note of the fact that during the
preceding two years, the deceased had come to the school for only about 20
days, mostly to appear in examinations, and respondent No.2 was not his
class teacher. Reference was also made to the e-mails written by the
petitioner to the school authorities, in which she had expressed gratitude for
the care taken of the deceased, including gratitude towards respondent No.2.
Keeping in view the age of respondent No.2, which was 59 years, her custody
since 27.02.2022 and the likelihood of the trial taking time, she was ordered
to be released on bail subject to the usual conditions. Aggrieved thereby, the
present petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned
order suffers from non-application of mind. The suicide note left by the
deceased specifically names respondent No.2 as one of the persons
responsible for his death, yet it was brushed aside on the ground that no
specific incident finds mention therein. Learned counsel has further argued
that the impugned order rests mainly upon the CCTV footage of 23.02.2022.
The Science examination, however, was held on 21.02.2022 and the mention
of 23.02.2022 in the statement of the petitioner was a bona fide mistake made
by a grieving mother on the very day following the death of her son. This
aspect was pointed out before the learned Sessions Judge but was not dealt
with. The conversation of 21.02.2022, recorded by the deceased himself,
shows that respondent No.2 had rebuked him for his difficulty with
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 4
numericals. While submitting that the impugned order is contrary to the
material on record, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Learned State counsel has referred to the status reports dated
26.05.2022 and 06.01.2023. It is submitted that the investigation stands
completed and the final report against respondent No.2 has been presented
before the trial Court. Learned State counsel has not pointed out any instance
of misuse of the concession of bail by respondent No.2 after her release.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
argued that the impugned order is a reasoned order, which has been passed
after considering all the relevant material. Respondent No.2 was the
Headmistress of the senior wing of the school and had no direct contact with
the deceased, who had attended the school only for a few days during the
pandemic. Learned counsel has further argued that the deceased had been
complaining of harassment and abuse by some students of the school, and
those students are being proceeded against separately. Respondent No.2 has
been on bail since March, 2022 and there is no allegation of her having
misused the concession of bail in any manner. Hence, no ground for
cancellation of bail is made out and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. This Court has heard the rival submissions at considerable
length, besides going through the material placed on record.
9. Before adverting to the facts, it would be appropriate to notice
the principles which govern a prayer for cancellation of bail. It is by now well
settled that the considerations for rejecting bail at the initial stage and those
for cancelling bail already granted are not the same. In Dolat Ram and others
v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 5
of bail already granted. Interference with the course of justice, evasion of
justice, abuse of the concession of bail and the likelihood of the accused
absconding were enumerated as the broad grounds for such cancellation. It
was also held that bail once granted ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical
manner. The relevant observations are as under:-
"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 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. "
10. At the same time, the jurisdiction of a superior Court in such
matters is not confined only to cases of misconduct after the grant of bail.
Where the order granting bail itself suffers from a serious infirmity, the
superior Court can set it aside. In Myakala Dharmarajam and others v. State
of Telangana and another, (2020) 2 SCC 743 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that an order granting bail can be set aside if the Court granting bail has
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 6
ignored relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused
or has taken into account irrelevant material. It was observed as under:-
"9. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in
cases where the order granting bail 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."
11. The distinction between the two situations was explained by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and
another, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , in the following words:-
"16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate
court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail
stand on a different footing from an assessment of an
application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of
an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether
there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the
discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the
order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On
the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is
generally examined on the anvil of the existence of
supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions
of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. ..."
12. Recently, in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc., 2025 INSC
979 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again noticed that two distinct categories
have emerged in this regard, namely, annulment of bail due to legal infirmity
in the order, and cancellation of bail, i.e., revocation of bail due to post-grant
misconduct or supervening circumstances.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 7
13. A conjoint reading of the above judgments shows that there is no
conflict between the principle laid down in Dolat Ram's case (supra) and the
one laid down in Myakala Dharmarajam's case (supra) . The former governs
cancellation of bail on account of the conduct of the accused or circumstances
arising after the grant of bail. The latter governs the correctness of the order
granting bail itself. In the present case, the petitioner has not alleged any
misconduct on the part of respondent No.2 after her release. The challenge is
essentially to the legality of the impugned order. The petition, therefore, has
to be tested on both counts. The first question is whether any supervening
circumstance has arisen. The second question is whether the learned Sessions
Judge ignored material relevant to the prima facie involvement of respondent
No.2, which, if considered, would have rendered the grant of bail unjustified.
A mere error in the reasoning, which does not affect the ultimate conclusion,
would not be sufficient to undo the liberty granted to an accused.
14. So far as the first question is concerned, the answer has to be in
the negative. Neither the petition nor the two status reports filed by the State
allege that respondent No.2 has threatened or tried to influence any witness,
tampered with any evidence or violated any condition of her bail. The
investigation stands completed and the final report has been presented before
the trial Court as far back as on 06.12.2022. No supervening circumstance, as
contemplated in Dolat Ram's case (supra) , has thus been brought on record.
15. Coming to the second question, there is merit in the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Science examination of Class X
was held on 21.02.2022 and not on 23.02.2022. This is borne out from the
date sheet (Annexure P-5), and the State has also proceeded on that basis by
collecting the CCTV footage of 21.02.2022. To that extent, the observation of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 8
the learned Sessions Judge, to the effect that respondent No.2 had not met the
deceased in the examination hall, was based on the CCTV footage of a wrong
date. The mistake in the date had originated from the statement of the
petitioner herself, and it cannot be held against her as she made the statement
on the day following the death of her son. However, the question which arises
is whether this error, by itself, renders the impugned order perverse.
16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the answer to this
question has to be in the negative. The finding regarding the CCTV footage
was only one of the several reasons which weighed with the learned Sessions
Judge. The other reasons, namely, the absence of any specific act attributed to
respondent No.2 in the suicide note, the fact that respondent No.2 was not the
class teacher of the deceased, the limited attendance of the deceased in the
school, and the e-mails of the petitioner expressing gratitude to the school
authorities, stand on their own. So do the age of respondent No.2 and the
period of custody already undergone by her. None of these reasons is affected
by the error in the date. Whether respondent No.2 rebuked the deceased on
21.02.2022, and if so, in what words, is a question of fact which can be
determined only during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the
parties. It is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to examine that
question in proceedings for cancellation of bail. The error in the date, thus,
does not go to the root of the impugned order.
17. As regards the suicide note (Annexure P-4), it no doubt states
that the school had killed the deceased, "specially higher authorities Mamta
Gupta and others". However, the note does not refer to any particular act,
word or incident attributable to respondent No.2. On the other hand, it refers
to the sexuality of the deceased "and whatever happened with me". This has
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 9
to be read along with the e-mail dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P-3), which was
written by the petitioner herself to the school authorities. In the said e-mail,
she had made serious allegations of sexual abuse and bullying of the deceased
by certain students of the school. Those allegations have been investigated
and, as per the status report dated 06.01.2023, a final report has been
presented before the Juvenile Court against three children in conflict with
law. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, justified in observing that the
suicide note does not point out any specific incident of harassment by
respondent No.2. Whether respondent No.2 abetted the suicide of the
deceased in any manner is a matter to be decided by the trial Court on the
basis of evidence.
18. The legal position regarding abetment of suicide in the context
of a teacher and a student also cannot be lost sight of. In Geo Varghese v.
State of Rajasthan and another, 2021 INSC 618 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that disciplinary or corrective measures taken by a teacher or school
authorities would not amount to instigation of suicide, unless there are
repeated and specific allegations of harassment and insult made deliberately
without any justifiable cause. It was further held that if the person committing
suicide was hypersensitive, and the act of the accused would not ordinarily
induce a similarly circumstanced person to take such a step, it would be
unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment. The relevant observations are
as under:-
"27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the
students. It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a
student for not being attentive or not being upto the mark in
studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school.
The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 10
authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his
indiscipline, in our considered opinion, would not
tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide,
unless there are repeated specific allegations of
harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable
cause or reason. A simple act of reprimand of a student for
his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral
obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being
in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or
intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student."
*
"22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of
suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation
of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the
commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of
harassment of the deceased by another person would not
be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such
actions on the part of the accused which compelled the
commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing
suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to
the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce
a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of
committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. ..."
19. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge also took into
consideration the age of respondent No.2, the period of custody already
undergone, the stage of the investigation and the likelihood of the trial taking
a long time. These are relevant considerations for the grant of bail. It is also
relevant that respondent No.2 has remained on bail since March 2022, i.e., for
more than four and a half years. During this period, the investigation has been
completed and the final report has been presented. Nothing has been brought
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-17651-2022 (O&M) 11
on record to show that her liberty has, in any way, hampered the investigation
or the trial. Sending her back to custody at this stage, in the absence of any
supervening circumstance and on account of an error which does not affect
the ultimate conclusion, would serve no useful purpose. It would also go
contrary to the principle laid down in Dolat Ram's case (supra) that bail once
granted ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 does not suffer from any
perversity or illegality warranting interference, and no supervening
circumstance has been shown for cancellation of the bail granted to
respondent No.2. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
21. It is, however, made clear that anything observed hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.


31.10.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.10.31 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document