New Delhi

The Supreme Court has granted interim relief to a husband accused in a dowry harassment and cruelty case by staying coercive action against him after his bail was cancelled by a trial court in Haryana and the order was subsequently upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

A Vacation Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the order while hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Deepak Bhardwaj challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 25, 2026. The matter has been listed for further consideration on August 7, 2026.

The Supreme Court has issued notice in the petition and directed that, in the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. The Court also recorded the petitioner's undertaking that he would personally appear before the Trial Court on all future dates unless circumstances warrant otherwise.

The dispute arises from criminal proceedings relating to allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty, in which the husband had been granted bail during the course of the trial. However, the trial court at Panipat cancelled his bail on account of his repeated non-appearance before the court. Consequential proceedings, including issuance of warrants and forfeiture of bail bonds, were also initiated against him. The Punjab and Haryana High Court subsequently declined to interfere with the order and directed him to surrender before the trial court.

Appearing for the petitioner-husband, Advocate Ujwal Ghai argued before the Supreme Court that the cancellation of bail was effected without affording his client any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. He contended that the trial court directly proceeded to cancel the bail, issue warrants and forfeit the bail bonds without following the principles of natural justice.

It was further submitted that the petitioner had been suffering from spinal medical complications and had been advised bed rest by doctors. According to the petitioner, his inability to appear before the trial court on certain dates was attributable to his medical condition and was neither intentional nor deliberate.

After hearing the submissions, the Vacation Bench issued notice to the respondents. The Court recorded the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that he would personally appear before the Trial Court on all dates fixed in the matter unless circumstances necessitated otherwise. Taking note of the undertaking, the Bench granted interim protection and directed that no coercive steps be taken against him pending further consideration of the case.

READ MORE: Aabroo's rise triggered Muslim women's aspiration to join civil services

The Supreme Court also directed the respondent authorities to file their response before the next date of hearing and clarified that no further opportunity would be granted for filing pleadings. The matter will now be taken up on August 7, 2026, when the Court is expected to examine the legality of the bail cancellation proceedings and the subsequent orders passed by the courts below.