The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that anticipatory bail, once granted on the basis of a settlement between parties, may be revoked if the accused subsequently breaches those terms and obstructs the investigation. This ruling reinforces that bail is a conditional liberty, not an absolute right, and non-compliance with judicially recognized conditions undermines the integrity of the criminal justice process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tarsem Singh, filed a complaint alleging that respondent No. 2, Bikram Singh, had accepted an advance of Rs. 10 lakh and substantial additional payments under a construction agreement for a plot owned by the petitioner’s son. Despite receiving over Rs. 87 lakh, Bikram Singh failed to complete the construction, leading to allegations of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Procedural History
- 31 August 2024: FIR No. 240 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala
- 27 September 2024: Respondent No. 2 granted interim anticipatory bail
- 3 October 2024: Parties executed a settlement deed (Annexure P-3) through the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Gurdaspur
- 7 October 2024: Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, made interim bail absolute, explicitly relying on the settlement deed as the basis for relief
- December 2025: Petitioner moved this Court under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking cancellation of bail
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 on grounds of non-compliance with the settlement deed and refusal to join the investigation despite repeated notices.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail granted on the basis of a settlement deed can be cancelled when the accused subsequently fails to perform under that settlement and refuses to cooperate with the investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the Sessions Judge’s order granting anticipatory bail was contingent upon respondent No. 2’s commitment to complete construction and cooperate with the investigation. The subsequent failure to perform under the settlement deed and persistent non-appearance before investigating authorities constituted a material breach of the conditions implicit in the bail order. Reliance was placed on Abdul Basit @ Raju v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary to establish that non-cooperation with investigation is a valid ground for bail cancellation.
For the Respondent/State
The State and respondent No. 2 did not file a separate reply. The advocate for respondent No. 2 adopted the State’s reply, which conceded that respondent No. 2 had not joined the investigation to date. No substantive challenge was raised to the petitioner’s allegations regarding breach of the settlement deed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that bail, particularly anticipatory bail, is not a right but a privilege conditioned on the accused’s conduct. It cited Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to underscore that bail may be cancelled where supervening circumstances reveal misuse of liberty or obstruction of justice.
"The concession of anticipatory bail was extended to him solely on the premise that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and that respondent No. 2 would abide by the terms and conditions thereof and cooperate with the investigation."
The Court emphasized that the Sessions Judge’s order was not based on an independent assessment of the merits of the allegations, but exclusively on the existence of the settlement deed. The subsequent failure to complete construction and refusal to appear before investigators rendered the foundational basis of the bail order void. The Court noted that respondent No. 2’s silence and adoption of the State’s reply amounted to an admission of non-cooperation.
The Court further held that such conduct falls squarely within the illustrative grounds for cancellation enumerated in Abdul Basit @ Raju: interference with investigation and failure to remain available to the agency. The Court rejected the notion that a settlement deed immunizes an accused from criminal liability or justifies continued liberty when its terms are violated.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that anticipatory bail may be cancelled where the accused breaches the terms upon which it was granted and obstructs the investigation. The orders dated 27.09.2024 and 07.10.2024 granting anticipatory bail were set aside, and respondent No. 2’s bail was cancelled.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlements Do Not Immune Accused From Bail Cancellation
- Practitioners must now argue that settlement deeds are not shields against criminal liability
- Courts will examine whether settlement terms were genuinely honored or merely used to secure bail
- Failure to perform under a settlement constitutes a supervening circumstance justifying bail recall
Non-Cooperation With Investigation Is Grounds for Immediate Recall
- Absence from investigation despite notice is sufficient to trigger bail cancellation
- Adopting the State’s reply without independent submission may be construed as admission of non-cooperation
- Courts will treat deliberate non-appearance as interference under Section 483(3) BNSS
Judicial Reliance on Settlements Must Be Explicit and Conditional
- When bail is granted based on compromise, the order must expressly state the conditions
- Failure to record conditions in writing does not negate their legal effect if proven by evidence
- Petitioners may now cite this judgment to challenge bail orders that appear to substitute settlement for substantive scrutiny
