***

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 3 to 6 in case arising out of FIR No. 76 dated 04.03.2024, registered under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, vide order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by the present petitioner alleging therein that on 04.03.2024 at about 6:45 PM, she found her husband Pardeep hanging inside the house. She further alleged that her husband had been under severe mental stress for the last several years on account of disputes with his elder sisters, Pooja and Babita (respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively), who were in possession of their house and allegedly used to threaten them. According to the complainant, whenever they asserted their right over the house, respondents No. 2 and 3 threatened to kill them and also threatened to falsely implicate her husband in a rape case and to involve the complainant and her children in false criminal cases. A complaint in this regard had earlier been submitted at Police Station Sector-6, Bahadurgarh. She also alleged that due to the death of her mother-in-law by poisoning and the threats extended by the above-named persons, her husband remained scared and frightened. On her complaint, an FIR bearing No. 0216 dated 02.08.2024 under Sections 304-A and 34 of IPC was registered against respondents No. 2 and 3. After the death of her husband, the complainant handed over a suicide note to the police during investigation, which was taken into possession. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Apprehending their arrest, respondents No. 3 to 6 moved an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar by passing the impugned order and they were granted concession of anticipatory bail. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking cancellation of benefit of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 3 to 6.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar ignored the fact that respondents No. 3 to 6 had abetted suicide by the victim. The Court concerned also ignored the fact that the accused persons were also involved in aforementioned FIR No. 216. It is further argued that respondents No. 3 to 6, after procuring benefit of anticipatory bail, are roaming freely and extending open threats to the petitioner with dire consequences. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the benefit of anticipatory bail granted to the private respondents is liable to be withdrawn.

4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State has submitted that the private respondents had joined investigation. It is further submitted that in the suicide note handed over by the petitioner, specific allegations have been levelled against respondents No. 2 to 4 and respondents No. 5 and 6 are named in the FIR.

5. Respondents No. 2 to 6 have filed reply contesting the petition and asserting that no ground for allowing the same is made out. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

7. Before delving into the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court considers it necessary to discuss certain principles which govern the cancellation of bail as enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements. Reference can firstly be made to Myakala Dharmarajam vs. the State of Telangana : (2020) 2 SCC 743, wherein it was observed that an order for cancellation of bail can be made only where such order 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. Reliance can further be placed upon Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it was observed that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses) or likelihood of his absconding. It was also observed that whether to grant bail or not is a matter of discretion of the Court. Similar position of law had been laid down in Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana :1995 SCC (1) 349.

8. On applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, while granting anticipatory bail to respondents No. 3 to 6, has duly considered the nature of allegations and the role attributed to them. It is not disputed that respondents No. 3 to 6 have already joined the investigation pursuant to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. The State has also not pointed out any instance of non-cooperation by them during the course of investigation. A perusal of the record further reveals that the allegations regarding abetment of suicide are primarily based upon the suicide note and the version of the complainant, which are matters to be examined during the course of investigation and trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored any material fact or considered irrelevant material while granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents. The mere fact that the respondents are also involved in another FIR, by itself, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for cancellation of the concession of bail already granted. It is well settled that the parameters for cancellation of bail are different and much stricter than those applicable for grant of bail. Once bail has been granted, the same can be cancelled only if the order granting bail suffers from patent illegality or if the accused has misused the concession by interfering with the investigation, influencing witnesses, or otherwise obstructing the course of justice. Except for a bald allegation that the respondents are extending threats, no specific material has been placed on record to substantiate such assertion. In the absence of any material to show that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity or that the private respondents have misused the concession of anticipatory bail, this Court does not find any justification to exercise powers under Section 483(3) of the BNSS for cancellation of bail. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

9. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial.

Petition dismissed.

********