Criminal Proceedings Not For Realization Of Disputed Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Cancel Anticipatory Bail

It is trite law that bail cannot be denied on account of recovery of money under custodial interrogation cannot be utilized to recover the money.

The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Jain further added that parameters with respect to cancellation of bail are no more res-integra and have been well settled by the Apex Court.

The court was dealing with a case where dispute between both the parties pertained to the settlement of accounts wherein the applicants-accused have rendered the accounts of Rs.7,89,000/- and an amount of Rs.11 lacs is pending. As a consequence, FIR under Sections 379 and 406 of IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC were added later on) was registered.

The court placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272 where it was held that cancellation of bail interferes with the liberty already secured by the accused either on the exercise of discretion by the court or by the thrust of law. Thus, power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection.

Court further placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 2 SCC 362 wherein it was held that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footings.

Keeping in view the dictum of law laid down by the Apex Court and the fact that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case within the parameters of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the court dismissed the present petition for bring sans merit.

Case Title: Anil Taneja versus State of Haryana and others

Click Here To Read/Download Order