IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-13248 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15th May, 2009 Uma Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail to the respondent No.2 in case FIR No. 54 of 2009 dated 25.02.2009 registered at Police Station DLF Pbase-II, Gurgaon under Sections 323, 354, 376, 384, 420, 452, 506 IPC. Bail was granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 20th March, 2009 (Annexure P-9). The trial Court, while granting bail to respondent No.2, has taken into consideration the fact that the alleged incident of rape took place on 1st August, 2007, whereas prosecutrix, for the first time, disclosed this incident to her brothers on 12th December, 2008. It is stated that lastly, on 7th January, 2009, sexual assault was committed. The Judge has taken into consideration various monitory transactions between the parties. It was also noticed that on 20th December, 2008, respondent No.2 had issued cheque of Rs.10.00 lakh in Criminal Misc. No. M-13248 of 2009 (O&M) favour of the petitioner. Taking various factors into consideration, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon has granted bail to respondent No.2. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure P-10, complaint made by brother of the petitioner to SHO, Police Station DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, to say that after grant of bail, brother of the petitioner was threatened. Such bald allegations can be leveled to defeat anybody’s right of bail. It cannot be said that order granting pre-arrest bail to respondent No.2, is not based on cogent reasons. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 15, 2009 rps 2