"Cancellation Of Bail" And "Setting Aside Of Bail Order" Are Conceptually Distinct: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to set aside an order granting regular bail to a woman accused in a travel-fraud case, reiterating the settled distinction between "cancellation of bail" (which requires supervening circumstances or misconduct after release) and "setting aside of a bail order" (which requires the original order itself to be shown as perverse or based on irrelevant considerations), while nonetheless directing the accused to surrender her passport given the flight-risk concerns raised.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The scope of consideration before this Court, however, is limited. It is trite that the parameters governing setting-aside of bail are distinct from those governing grant of bail. Once bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled in a routine manner unless it is shown that the accused has misused the concession of bail, attempted to tamper with evidence, influenced witnesses, evaded the process of law or that the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or based on wholly irrelevant considerations."

The petitioner-complainant sought setting-aside of an order, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram granted regular bail to respondent in FIR  registered under Sections 318(4), 3(5) and 316(2) BNS. The complainant alleged that respondent, along with her father and other co-accused, operated a travel business, and had received ₹8,90,000 from him for travel arrangements, only for him to discover, as the travel date approached, that the air tickets and hotel reservations were forged, cancelled or invalid, forcing him to make fresh arrangements at a much higher cost.

Senior Advocate for the petitioner argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the investigative material showing a deliberate scheme of cheating and forgery from the inception of the transaction, that the "thin line" reasoning applied by the trial court (treating it as akin to breach of agreement) was erroneous, that multiple similar FIRs and material regarding respondent's alleged pattern of similar offences were placed before the trial court but not properly considered, and that respondent No.2 posed a genuine flight risk, having previously been intercepted at IGI Airport while allegedly attempting to flee to Dubai — combined with alleged foreign links raising apprehension of evasion and witness tampering.

The State supported the petitioner, noting respondent's alleged pattern of similar offences reflecting criminal propensity.

Counsel for respondent argued the petition was, in substance, an impermissible attempt to seek review of a well-reasoned bail order; that the power under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 BNSS is confined to cases of actual misuse of bail, interference with justice, or violation of bail conditions — none of which were alleged; and that no supervening event since the grant of bail had been placed on record.

Justice Goel relied on earlier ruling in Dinesh Madan v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-9029-2023 (decided 17.05.2024), reiterating the foundational distinction between the two remedies:

"There is a conceptual distinction, between 'cancellation of bail' & 'setting-aside of a bail order'. In a plea seeking 'cancellation of bail'; the factors required to be considered are akin to supervening circumstances/events or mis-conduct of accused whereas in a plea seeking 'setting-aside of a bail order'; the factors required to be considered are akin to the order in question being unjustified or illegal or not based on relevant consideration(s)."

Examining which category the present petition fell into, the Court found, from both the pleadings and arguments — that the petitioner was in substance seeking to set aside the bail order itself, on the ground that the trial court had failed to properly weigh material available even at the time bail was granted, rather than pointing to any post-bail supervening conduct.

Applying the settled test for setting aside a bail order — whether it is perverse, illegal, or based on wholly irrelevant considerations — the Court found the trial court's order was a "well-reasoned speaking order" that had granted bail mainly on the ground that culpability would need to be established through evidence, a process expected to take considerable time given the progress of trial, with the challan already presented. The Court held:

"The petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that after the grant of regular bail, respondent No.2 has attempted to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence or violate any condition imposed by the Court. The apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are largely speculative and not supported by any cogent material... Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the Court below which has granted the bail or the seriousness of the offence, by itself, is not sufficient to recall/setting-aside of such an order."

The Court held that the grounds raised, the nature and gravity of allegations, and the alleged pattern of similar offences — were all matters available and presumably considered at the time bail was originally granted, and could not be re-agitated in the absence of any supervening circumstance. It found no evidence that respondent No.2 had absconded, tampered with evidence, influenced witnesses, or violated any bail condition since her release.

Dismissing the petition, the Court held no ground was made out to set aside the regular bail granted to respondent. However, "considering the factual milieu of the case," the Court directed respondent to surrender her passport within 7 days with the concerned trial court, addressing the flight-risk concern without disturbing the underlying bail order and clarified that its observations would not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case.

Title: Manan Chugh v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read order