IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Date of Decision:- -05.04.2017
State of Punjab and others
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Anmol Grewal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nitin Narula, Advocate
for Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439(2) for
cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.4, vide order
dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fazilka, in case FIR No.9 dated 06.02.2016, registered under Section
498-A IPC (Section 406 IPC added later on), at Police Station City-2,
Abohar, District Fazilka.
Learned State counsel has informed that the after presentation
of the challan, the charge has been framed and the trial is fixed for
1 of 2
09-04-2017 15:19:21 :::
As is evident from the order dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure P-2)
that the bail was granted to respondent No.4 keeping in view the fact that
respondent No.4 (husband) had filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction
directing the petitioner-complainant to take back her dowry articles and the
FIR was registered under Section 498-A IPC and offence under Section 406
IPC has been added after the filing the bail application.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through
the record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground for
cancellation of bail is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not
point out any patent illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order. Such
articulated order, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside in the
garb of petition for cancellation of bail, unless and until the same is totally
illegal and without jurisdiction.
In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore,
the instant petition for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed as such.
April 05, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI )
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
2 of 2
09-04-2017 15:19:22 :::