Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea to Cancel Bail in ED Impersonation Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly rejected a petition seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Anil Kumar Kaushik, who is implicated in a high-profile 2023 case involving alleged impersonation of Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials and extortion. Justice Sumeet Goel, presiding over the matter, ruled that there was insufficient cogent material to demonstrate that Kaushik had misused the bail privileges afforded to him in July and September 2023.
Background of the Case
The legal proceedings originate from FIR No. 88, dated May 16, 2023, which was registered at the Nagina Police Station in Haryana's Nuh district. According to the complaint filed by Vijay Kumar, on March 29, 2023, three individuals arrived at his residence in a Tata Harrier vehicle, falsely presenting themselves as ED officers. They allegedly threatened him with fabricated tax implications and demanded a sum of Rs 5 lakh, ultimately extorting Rs 2.5 lakh from him.
The FIR invoked multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including:
- 420 (cheating)
- 384 (extortion)
- 467 (forgery)
- 419 (impersonation)
- 120-B (criminal conspiracy)
Anil Kumar Kaushik was granted interim anticipatory bail on July 20, 2023, and this bail was subsequently confirmed on September 20, 2023, after he actively participated in the investigation and facilitated certain recoveries.
Petition for Bail Cancellation
Vijay Kumar, represented by Advocate Jamshed Ahmed, later approached the court seeking the cancellation of Kaushik's bail. The petitioner alleged that Kaushik, along with his associates, had engaged in intimidation tactics, pressuring Kumar to withdraw the case. Such actions, if proven, would constitute a violation of the bail conditions stipulated 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, strongly opposed this plea, arguing that there was no substantive evidence to support the allegations.
Court's Rationale and Key Observations
In his detailed order, Justice Goel emphasized that neither the state authorities nor the case record provided any indication that Kaushik had threatened witnesses or attempted to influence the ongoing investigation or trial. The allegations of intimidation were based solely on the petitioner's complaints, with no prima facie evidence to suggest a misuse of the liberty granted through bail.
The court underscored a critical legal principle: "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."
Furthermore, the judge 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 order clarified that anticipatory bail cannot be revoked merely through a re-appreciation of facts that were already considered at the time of the initial grant, unless there is demonstrable abuse of liberty.
Key Reasons Cited by the Court
- No cogent, clear, or convincing evidence was presented to prove that the accused actually misused the bail, such as material showing intimidation of witnesses or obstruction of justice.
- The allegations of threats relied exclusively on complaints made by the petitioner, with nothing prima facie establishing misuse.
- The seriousness of the offence alone is insufficient to cancel bail once it has been lawfully granted and the conditions have been complied with.
- Cancellation of bail requires strong supervening circumstances, such as misconduct, intimidation, or commission of new offences, which were not found in this instance.
- The earlier bail order was well-reasoned and not perverse, indicating a sound judicial process.
The main trial in this case is currently pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Ferozepur Jhirka, with the prosecution's evidence yet to commence. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that bail decisions are based on factual evidence and legal principles, rather than the gravity of the charges alone.
