Court distinguishes between "cancellation of bail" and "setting-aside of bail order," rejects petition challenging bail granted to accused in travel fraud case, directs surrender of passport as precaution
In a significant judgment delivered on September 15, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, through Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed a petition seeking to set aside the regular bail granted to respondent No.2 in a travel fraud case registered in Gurugram. The case involved allegations of cheating, forgery, and dishonest inducement where the petitioner, Manan Chugh, claimed to have been defrauded of Rs. 8,90,000 by the accused and her associates who operated a travel business.
The Court meticulously analyzed the legal distinction between "cancellation of bail" and "setting-aside of a bail order," drawing upon the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and relevant Supreme Court precedents. It held that cancellation of bail is contingent upon supervening circumstances such as misuse of bail liberty, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or violation of bail conditions. In contrast, setting-aside of a bail order challenges the legality or propriety of the initial bail grant itself. The Court emphasized that mere seriousness of the offence or dissatisfaction with the reasoning in the bail order does not justify setting aside the bail.
The petitioner contended that the accused had committed serious offences beyond breach of contract, highlighted multiple FIRs of similar nature against her, and expressed apprehension regarding her foreign links and flight risk. However, the Court found no concrete or supervening material indicating misuse of bail, interference with the trial, or violation of bail conditions post-release. The impugned order granting bail was described as a well-reasoned speaking order, rightly balancing the interests of justice and the need for a fair trial.
As a precautionary measure, the Court directed the respondent to surrender her passport within seven days to prevent any misuse of bail liberty. The judgment also reiterated that the dismissal of the petition should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
This ruling provides crucial guidance on the legal thresholds for challenging bail orders under BNSS, 2023, and reinforces that bail granted after due consideration cannot be lightly disturbed without substantial new evidence or misconduct. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that bail is not misused while protecting the fundamental rights of the accused during the trial process.
Bottom Line:
The parameters for "cancellation of bail" differ from those for "setting-aside of a bail order"; cancellation requires supervening circumstances such as misuse of bail, while setting-aside challenges the legality or propriety of the initial bail order. Mere seriousness of the offence or dissatisfaction with reasoning does not justify setting aside a bail order.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 483(3), 528 (erstwhile Sections 439(2), 482 Cr.P.C.)
Manan Chugh v. State Of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979948
