Courts Have Inherent Power To Cancel Anticipatory Bail For Breach Of Conditions Imposed: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Holding that cancellation of bail for violation of a court-recorded settlement does not amount to a prohibited review of a final judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court clarified that a bail order remains intrinsically conditional and can be set aside where its foundational assurances collapse, without offending the statutory bar on alteration of judgments.
Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that where anticipatory bail is granted on the strength of a court-recorded compromise and the accused subsequently breaches that undertaking, the Court retains inherent jurisdiction to cancel bail.
Such cancellation, the Court held, is not a recall or review prohibited under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or its equivalent provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, because a bail order is conditional and responsive to evolving facts.
The Court was hearing an application by the complainant seeking recall of an earlier anticipatory bail order granted to the accused in a cheating case arising from an alleged real estate transaction.
A Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel, underscored the doctrinal nature of bail orders and clarified: “The bar created by Section 362 Cr.P.C./403 BNSS is intended to prevent the correction of a final judgment on its merits; however, it does not eclipse the inherent and statutory power of this Court to cancel bail when the very conditions upon which it was predicated have been violated."
Background
The dispute arose from allegations that the accused induced the complainant to invest in a housing project, accepted substantial payments, and failed to deliver possession or refund the amount. The accused sought anticipatory bail.
During the proceedings, the parties entered into a mediated compromise under which an alternative flat was to be delivered by a stipulated date. On the strength of that settlement, the Court granted anticipatory bail and directed adherence to the compromise.
The complainant later moved for cancellation, asserting non-compliance. The accused opposed the application, arguing that Section 362 CrPC barred recall of the earlier order and that the complainant’s remedy lay in civil enforcement of the compromise.
Court’s Observations
The High Court first examined the nature of the earlier bail order. It found that bail had not been granted on the merits but only based on the mediated settlement. Once the accused defaulted, the factual foundation of the order ceased to exist.
The Court emphasised that when an accused invites judicial intervention based on a compromise, the undertaking transcends a private contract and becomes a solemn assurance to the Court. Breach, therefore, constitutes not merely a civil wrong but an affront to judicial authority. A litigant cannot secure liberty on assurances and then treat compliance as optional.
Addressing the statutory bar argument, the Court distinguished review of a final judgment and cancellation of bail. It held that Section 362 prohibits alteration of a concluded judgment on merits but does not curtail the Court’s inherent power to withdraw bail when its conditions are violated. Bail, by its nature, is interlocutory and contingent. Judicial control over such liberty remains active and responsive to subsequent conduct.
The Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence, affirming that bail orders are dynamic and may be revisited where circumstances change. It noted that cancellation in such a case is not a reconsideration of merits but a restorative response to a breach that nullifies the original basis of relief.
Further, while stating that "the power to cancel bail is an inherent and statutory corollary to the power to grant it; it is a restorative measure designed to ensure that the judicial process is not undermined”, the Bench elaborated that "a bail order is an interlocutory mandate that remains sensitive to the conduct of the accused (enlarged on bail) and the fulfillment of the conditions upon which it was predicated", concluding that "the bar enshrined in Section 362 Cr.P.C./Section 403 BNSS, which precludes the 'alteration' or 'review' of a final judgment, does not find application here".
The Bench also evaluated the seriousness of the allegations, the accused’s antecedents, and the broader societal interest in ensuring that judicial processes are not manipulated. It held that liberty obtained through a settlement cannot survive wilful non-compliance, particularly where allegations indicate fraudulent conduct affecting public confidence.
Conclusion
Summarising the operative directions, the High Court allowed the complainant’s application, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted earlier, and dismissed the accused’s bail petition. It further directed that if the accused surrenders within the specified period, he may seek regular bail to be decided independently on merits.
The Court also imposed costs payable to the legal services authority, with recovery mechanisms specified in case of default.
Cause Title: Surinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and another
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates Yogesh Goel, Jashanpreet Singh, Izairra Mittal,
Respondent: Advocates A.P. Kaushal, Pallavi Bahre, and Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.