In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-2837 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:20.5.2010 Court on its own motion .....Petitioner v. Gurmeet Kaur .....Respondent .... Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Ms. Satpreet Kaur Grewal, Advocate for Gurmeet Kaur- respondent. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Birbal Singh one of the co-accused of the respondent Gurmeet Kaur filed Criminal Misc. No.M-32758 of 2009 for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.381 dated 24.11.2007 registered at Police Station Kharar, District Mohali for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. During the hearing in the said case it transpired that Gurmeet Kaur (respondent) who is also an accused in the said case has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali vide order dated 20.3.2009. It had inter alia been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali while granting anticipatory bail to Gurmeet Kaur (respondent) that there was nothing on the file that she has Cr. Misc. No.M-2837 of 2010 [2] used the power of attorney in any transaction. However, it was noticed that the allegations in the FIR itself were that Gurmeet Kaur had vide agreement dated 22.6.2007 agreed to sell the land to Narinder Pal. Besides, in the said order dated 20.3.2009 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali it was mentioned that the other co-accused were already on bail, whereas Birbal Singh, who had filed the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous petition for grant of regular bail was admittedly in custody since 24.12.2007. Accordingly, a suo motu notice was issued to Gurmeet Kaur as to why the bail granted to her on 20.3.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali be not cancelled. Ms. Satpreet Kaur Grewal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Gurmeet Kaur. Reply on behalf of Gurmeet Kaur has been filed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it may be noticed that the FIR in the case has been registered on the statement made by Amar Singh. It is alleged by Amar Singh, who is attorney of the complainants Cameron Issac Vickram and his son Sandeep Issac Vickram that Cameron Issac Vickram and Sandeep Issac Vickram are owners of House No.412, Ward No.11, Ranjit Nagar, Kharar, District Mohali. They had not issued any power of attorney in favour of Gurmeet Kaur wife of Gurmeet Singh on 17.12.2005 nor had they authorized her to sell the above said property on their behalf. An agreement to sell dated 22.6.2007 was, however, entered into between said Gurmeet Kaur and Narinder Pal by fraud. They had not authorized Gurmeet Kaur to enter into an agreement to sell with Narinder Pal. On 16.3.2007 another person, namely, Birbal Singh had got registered a forged general power of attorney Cr. Misc. No.M-2837 of 2010 [3] in his favour by producing some persons who impersonated as the complainants-Cameron and Sandeep. He also got the signatures by affixing false photographs of Cameron and Sandeep whereas they never came to India when the general power of attorney dated 19.3.2007 was executed or registered. The said person Birbal Singh sold the land vide sale deed dated 26.3.2007 to Kuldeep Singh for a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/- while the said purchaser Kuldeep Singh deliberately and intentionally gave his address of Andhra Pradesh. The complainants came to know from their neighbour that the address of the purchaser Kuldeep Singh had been mentioned fraudulently. The complainants had given the general power of attorney in the name of Amar Singh who had been authorized to file a complaint against the accused. The allegations in the FIR, therefore, show that Gurmeet Kaur (respondent) had entered into an agreement to sell the house of the complainant on the basis of a power of attorney dated 17.12.2005. Besides, the agreement to sell dated 22.6.2007 (Annexure-R.2) shows that she is acting as general power of attorney holder of Sandeep Singh son of Vickram Singh. Therefore, the reasons recorded in the order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali that there was nothing on the file that the Gurmeet Kaur (respondent) used the power of attorney in any transaction is not shown to be correct. Besides, it is also mentioned in the order dated 20.3.2009 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that all other co-accused in the case were already on bail. However, Birbal Singh who filed Criminal Misc. No.M-32758 of 2009 was in custody on 20.3.2009 and he was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8.2.2010. Bail once Cr. Misc. No.M-2837 of 2010 [4] granted is normally not to be cancelled unless the person to whom it is granted misuses the concession of bail. In Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal and another, (2009) 1 SCC 678, it was, however, observed by the Supreme Court that it is not as if once a bail is granted by any Court, the only way is to get it cancelled is on account of its misuse. Bail order, it was observed, can be tested on merits also. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali considers the matter afresh regarding grant of anticipatory bail to Gurmeet Kaur (respondent) and till such application is considered Gurmeet Kaur (respondent) shall remain on interim bail. Accordingly, the order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali is set aside. Gurmeet Kaur (respondent) shall appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali on 1.6.2010. On appearance she shall be admitted to interim bail on her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the said learned Additional Sessions Judge. In case she fails to appear on 1.6.2010, her anticipatory bail that has been granted on 20.3.2009 shall become inoperative and shall stand cancelled. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali shall consider the application for bail of Gurmeet Kaur (respondent) as expeditiously as possible and till such consideration she shall continue to be on interim bail. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 20, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*