CRM-M 2733 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M2733 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on August 18,2009. Smt.Baljinder Kaur -- Petitioner vs. Baldev Singh and others --Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.T.C.Dhanwal,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana. Mr.G.L.Sadana,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This is a petition under Section 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'). seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide his order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) to respondent Nos.1 and 2 in case registered vide FIR No. 604 dated 29.11.2008 under Sections 406/498-A/506/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar. Briefly stated the allegations contained in the FIR are that Baljinder Kaur complainant was married to the son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 25.12.2004. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, dowry articles were given to the respondents and their relatives. She was CRM-M 2733 of 2009 (O&M) 2 maltreated and turned out of the house in May, 2008. A panchayat was convened. On the assurance of the accused persons, she was left at Chandigarh on 11.6.2008 but she was not treated well. On 17.6.2008 she along-with her husband came to Hisar. She talked to her parents for money for purchase of car and her father gave Rs.50,000/-. After returning back to Chandigarh, she was again beaten. On 20.6.2008, she moved an application to the police but the matter was settled. It is also alleged that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have threatened that their son would leave her and would settle abroad and when she demanded her passport from her husband, he refused to give it. On 22.10.2008, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came to her house and threatened and abused her. Thereafter, her father brought her back to Hisar on 23.10.2008. However, she was again brought by them. It is alleged that ultimately on 26.11.2008, the petitioner was brought back by her uncle Baldev Singh from Chandigarh to Hisar. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had also filed an application for bail apprehending their arrest but that was rendered infructuous as by that time, no FIR was lodged. However, after the aforesaid FIR was lodged, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar on 24.12.2008 observing as under:- “After giving my due consideration, I find that quarrel was basically among the husband and wife and the petitioners who are old persons cannot be made to suffer only because a list of articles has been given. They are admittedly residing at Lohgarh from where the recovery has been effected by the Investigating Officer. If some more CRM-M 2733 of 2009 (O&M) 3 articles are with the husband, the same can be got recovered by arresting him. As far as the present petitioners are concerned, I find that it is a fit case to order that in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail, on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount each of satisfaction of investigating/arresting officer. However, they shall join investigation as and when called upon. They would not leave the country without permission of the Court. They shall also surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer at the time of furnishing bail bonds. Papers be consigned to record room”. The petitioner (complainant) has sought cancellation of the aforesaid order granting bail in which neither there is any allegation that respondent Nos.1 and 2 after having been released on anticipatory bail, have tampered with the evidence or have violated the conditions imposed therein. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have concealed that they are residing with their son in the same house. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for the purpose of cancellation of bail as after the bail is granted, a valuable right vests in the person which cannot be taken away by ipsi-dixit of the complainant. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have tried to misuse the concession of bail or tamper with the evidence. In view of the above, the present petition is found to be CRM-M 2733 of 2009 (O&M) 4 without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made here-in- above, may not be taken as an expression on merit of the case. Aug 18,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge