Criminal Misc.-M No. 13905 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 13905 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.8.2011 Parmod Kumar Bedi . .. Petitioner v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bansal, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 31.3.2010. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are parents-in-law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below had granted bail to respondents No. 2 and 3 without considering the material relevant for grant of pre-arrest bail in which recovery of dowry articles was yet to be effected. However, he was candid in stating that he cannot support his argument regarding consideration or non-consideration of the relevant material being one of the grounds for cancellation of bail with any judgment. Criminal Misc.-M No. 13905 of 2010 [2] On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that as no recovery of dowry articles has been effected, the respondents No. 2 and 3 be permitted to be taken into custody. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that in terms of the order passed by the learned court below, they had joined investigation. In fact, the wife forged the signatures of the husband and had gone to Australia without his consent, for which even a complaint was made to the police. Placing reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dolat Ram and others v. The State of Haryana, JT 1995 (1) SC 127, it was submitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 having already been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail more than one year and four months ago and the same having not been misused, pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents No. 2 and 3 does not deserve to be cancelled at this stage. Otherwise also, they were living separate from the couple. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that pre-arrest bail was granted to respondents No. 2 and 3, who are the parents-in-law, on 31.3.2010, merely on the allegation of learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery of dowry articles has not been effected, the bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 cannot be cancelled, especially when there are no allegations of misuse of the concession. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.8.2011 mk