Anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled absent supervening circumstances, misuse, or patent perversity.

The petitioner sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 in FIR No. 197 dated 12 July 2026, registered at Police Station Israna, District Panipat, under Section 318(4) read with Section 61(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.

The prosecution arose from a failed property transaction in which the complainant had allegedly paid ₹1.75 crore as earnest money to respondent No. 2 and ₹2.68 crore to co-accused Wazir, who was stated to be the original owner of the property.

The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 and her husband had induced him to make the payments, retained or facilitated retention of the money, and were implicated through call recordings, transcripts, and the financial trail. It was also alleged that a cheque issued towards repayment had been dishonoured.

The Additional Sessions Judge granted respondent No. 2 anticipatory bail after observing that the dispute essentially arose from a civil transaction, that Wazir had failed to execute the sale deed and had transferred the land to his wife and son, and that respondent No. 2’s intention to defraud could not prima facie be inferred at the time of entering into the agreement.

The petitioner consequently invoked Section 483(3) read with Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C., seeking cancellation of that bail and custodial interrogation of respondent No. 2.

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 suffered from patent illegality, perversity, arbitrariness, or non-consideration of material circumstances warranting its cancellation?

2. Whether the allegations regarding the disputed monetary and property transaction, including the alleged financial trail, dishonoured cheque, and call recordings, constituted sufficient grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail and custodial interrogation?

3. Whether any supervening circumstance, such as misuse of bail, interference with investigation or trial, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, evasion of law, or breach of bail conditions, had been established?

The Court applied Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C., governing cancellation of bail and inherent jurisdiction.

It held that cancellation of bail stands on a qualitatively different footing from refusal of bail at the initial stage and must ordinarily be exercised sparingly. Bail may be cancelled where the accused subsequently misuses the concession, interferes with the administration of justice, tampers with evidence, intimidates or influences witnesses, evades the process of law, violates bail conditions, or where the original bail order is patently perverse, arbitrary, or legally infirm.

Relying on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349, the Court reiterated that very cogent, compelling, and overwhelming circumstances are required to displace an order granting bail.

The Court also relied on the principle that a criminal proceeding should not be converted into a mechanism for recovery of money arising from a disputed commercial or contractual transaction where appropriate civil remedies are available.

The Court found that the Additional Sessions Judge had considered the material circumstances and had reasonably concluded that the dispute arose from a failed property transaction.

The alleged payments, dishonoured cheque, call recordings, and financial trail related primarily to the underlying transaction and did not, by themselves, demonstrate post-bail misconduct or misuse of the concession.

The Court distinguished Kurban v. State of Haryana and Another, 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 696, observing that the present proceedings concerned cancellation of bail rather than the initial consideration of an anticipatory-bail application; therefore, the Court was not required to undertake a fresh assessment of the accusation on merits.

No material established that respondent No. 2 had interfered with the investigation or trial, tampered with evidence, intimidated witnesses, evaded the process of law, or violated any bail condition.

Consequently, the stringent threshold for cancellation under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. was not met.

The petition seeking cancellation of respondent No. 2’s anticipatory bail and her custodial interrogation was accordingly dismissed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal allegations or the defence of the parties.

All pending miscellaneous and ancillary applications were disposed of as infructuous.