‘Offence seriousness not enough’: Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects plea to cancel bail for man posing as ED officer to extort lakhs

The FIR invoked sections including 420 (cheating), 384 (extortion), 467 (forgery), 419 (impersonation), and 120-B (conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

Kaushik was granted interim anticipatory bail on July 20, 2023, and it was confirmed on September 20, 2023, after he joined the investigation and made recoveries.

Kumar, represented by Advocate Jamshed Ahmed, later moved the court seeking cancellation, alleging that Kaushik, along with associates, had intimidated him and pressured him to withdraw the case, acts that would violate bail conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Haryana Government, represented by Senior Deputy Advocate General Mahima Yashpal, and Kaushik, represented by Advocate Nikhil Ghai, opposed the plea.

Justice Goel, in his order, noted that neither the state nor the record suggested Kaushik had threatened witnesses or influenced the investigation or trial. The allegations of intimidation rested solely on the petitioner’s complaints, with no prima facie evidence of misuse of liberty.

The court emphasised that “the seriousness of the offence, by itself, is not a ground seeking cancellation of bail, once the accused has been found entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail and has complied with the conditions imposed therein.”

It further observed: “In the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing material showing violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty by respondent No.2, this Court does not find any justification to exercise the extraordinary power of cancellation of anticipatory bail.”

The judge added that anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled merely on re-appreciation of facts already considered at the grant stage unless there is proven abuse of liberty.

Key reasons cited by the court

• No cogent, clear, or convincing evidence was produced to prove that the accused actually misused the bail (e.g., no material showing intimidation of witnesses or obstruction of justice).
• Allegations of threats were based only on complaints made by the petitioner; nothing prima facie established misuse.
• Seriousness of the offence alone is not enough to cancel bail once it has already been granted and conditions complied with.
• Cancellation of bail requires strong supervening circumstances (misconduct, intimidation, new offences, etc.), which were not found here.
• The earlier bail order was well-reasoned and not perverse.

The main trial is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, with the prosecution’s evidence yet to begin.