Crl. Misc. No. M-37887 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-37887 of 2011 Date of Decision : 20th December, 2011 Ajmer Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryan & another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common order, I am disposing of two cases i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-37887 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No.M-37889 of 2011 both filed by complainant Ajmer Singh, seeking cancellation of bail of Ajit Singh- respondent No.2 in the former case and Maina Kumari-respondent No.2 in the latter case, granted vide orders dated 07.10.2011 and 10.10.2011 respectively by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind in case FIR No.251 dated 29.09.2011 under Sections 379, 494, 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jind. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case files. According to prosecution version, Maina Kumari solemnized marriage with the complainant. But after a month or so of the marriage, she in conspiracy with Ajit Singh and others left the complainant's house along with Crl. Misc. No. M-37887 of 2011 -2- his ornaments and other articles and re-married with Ajit Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ornaments of the complainant-petitioner are yet to be recovered and therefore, bail has been erroneously granted to the aforesaid two accused by learned Magistrate. The contention cannot be accepted to order cancellation of bail of the two accused. Admittedly at the time of bail orders, both the aforesaid accused were in judicial custody. Consequently, even if the bail had not been granted, no recovery of ornaments could be effected from them when they were not in police custody. Case is triable by Magistrate. Both the aforesaid accused were arrested and have been granted regular bail. There is no error in the impugned bail orders of learned Magistrate so as to warrant cancellation of bail of the accused. For the reasons aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I find that both these petitions are misconceived and meritless. Accordingly both the petitions are dismissed in limine. 20th December, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) 'raj' JUDGE