The High Court of Punjab and Haryana clarified that a failure to honour a financial undertaking made during the grant of anticipatory bail does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for cancelling the bail, reinforcing the need for concrete evidence of misuse of liberty.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Gurmej Singh, filed a petition under Section 483(2) of the BNSS, 2023, seeking cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2, Omkar Singh. The petition arose from FIR No.0167 dated 01 July 2022, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar, alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 167, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The core allegation was that Omkar Singh, shown as purchaser of land in the 2014-15 jamabandi, obtained a loan of Rs.1,75,000 from Canara Bank on the basis of that entry, and later failed to repay the loan despite an undertaking made during the bail application.
Key Facts
- 01 July 2022: FIR registered against Omkar Singh and others for alleged offences.
- Land involved: 41 kanal 3 marla in village Bansantor alias Bhagwangarh, specified by certain khasra numbers.
- Jamabandi 2014-15: Shows Omkar Singh and others as purchasers/cultivators, though they allegedly never bought the land.
- Loan obtained: Rs.1,75,000 from Canara Bank; additional loan from Punjab National Bank by Satish Kumar.
- Application for pre-arrest bail: Filed before the Sessions Court; the application was dismissed (date not specified).
- 28 August 2023: The High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to Omkar Singh after hearing the parties and the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
- 06 November 2023: The interim bail was made absolute; the State submitted that Omkar Singh had joined the investigation and custodial interrogation was not required.
- Petition filed: Under Section 483(2) BNSS, seeking cancellation of the bail on the ground of non-payment of the loan (exact filing date not mentioned).
Procedural History
- 01 July 2022: FIR registered.
- Date unspecified: Sessions Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application.
- 28 August 2023: High Court granted interim anticipatory bail (CRM-M-42537-2023).
- 06 November 2023: Interim bail made absolute (CRM-M-42537-2023).
- Petition under Section 483(2) BNSS filed: Date not specified, argued that bail should be cancelled.
- 20 August 2026: High Court delivered the present judgment dismissing the petition.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner (Gurmej Singh): Argues that Omkar Singh misled the Court by undertaking to clear the loan with interest, yet the loan remains outstanding; seeks cancellation of bail on grounds of false undertaking and misuse of liberty.
- Respondent State (State of Haryana & Omkar Singh): Contends that the bail was granted after the investigating agency took a categorical stand that custodial interrogation was unnecessary; no evidence of misuse, tampering, or violation of bail conditions.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 on the basis that the loan undertaking was not fulfilled.
The Legal Issue
Whether the failure of a bail-grant applicant to fulfil a financial undertaking, without any evidence of misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or interference with investigation, suffices as a ground to cancel pre-arrest bail under Section 483(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner relies on the fact that Omkar Singh expressly undertook to clear the loan of Rs.1,75,000 with interest, yet the loan remains unpaid, constituting a false undertaking.
- Cites the civil suit filed by Canara Bank and the bank’s branch manager’s statement confirming the outstanding amount, arguing that the bail was obtained by fraud and should be cancelled.
For the Respondent/State
- The State points out that the bail was granted after the investigating agency categorically held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that Omkar Singh had complied with the requirement to join the investigation.
- Argues that no material on record shows misuse of bail, tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or violation of bail conditions; therefore, cancellation is unwarranted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first outlined the jurisprudential framework governing the cancellation of bail, referring to Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana (2020) 2 SCC 743, which holds that cancellation is permissible only when the order suffers from serious infirmities leading to a miscarriage of justice. It further relied on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, emphasizing that while granting anticipatory bail, courts must consider the nature of the offence, the role of the accused, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
"An order for cancellation of bail can be made only where such order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice."
The Court noted that Section 483(3) BNSS corresponds to Section 439(2) CrPC, which empowers the court to cancel bail only upon proof that the accused has misused the liberty granted, interfered with the investigation, or committed any breach of conditions. The petitioner's sole reliance on the non-payment of the loan was deemed insufficient, as the loan liability pertains to a civil-financial obligation and does not, per se, indicate misuse of the bail concession.
The Court observed that the material placed on record did not demonstrate any violation of bail conditions, intimidation of witnesses, or tampering with evidence. Moreover, the State had specifically submitted that the respondent had joined the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not required, reinforcing the absence of any substantive ground for cancellation.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish any of the statutory grounds for revoking the pre-arrest bail. The mere fact that the loan remained unpaid, without accompanying evidence of fraud, suppression of material facts, or abuse of the bail process, does not satisfy the threshold for cancellation.
The Verdict
The petition is dismissed. The pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 on 28 August 2023 and made absolute on 6 November 2023 remains in force. No order of cancellation is issued, and no costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cancellation Requires Evidence of Misuse
- Courts will look for concrete proof that the accused has interfered with the investigation, tampered with evidence, or violated bail conditions before cancelling bail.
- Financial defaults alone, without such evidence, are insufficient.
Financial Undertakings Are Not Automatic Triggers
- An undertaking to repay a loan made during bail proceedings does not become a ground for cancellation merely because the repayment is delayed or defaulted.
- Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the default reflects a broader intent to misuse the liberty granted.
Judicial Discretion Remains Paramount
- The discretion under Section 483(2) BNSS (or Section 439(2) CrPC) is exercised sparingly; courts must balance the rights of the accused against the interests of justice.
- Practitioners should focus on establishing prima facie misuse rather than relying on ancillary financial matters.
