CRM-M No. 14156 of 2011 **** Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others Present: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Abrol, AAG, Punjab. Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. **** This is a petition for cancellation of bail in case FIR No. 72 dated 06.04.2011, under Section 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Jodhewal, District Ludhiana passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The broad brush allegation in the FIR was that the respondent No.2 who is the daughter had stolen the money of the petitioner from his house along with her husband respondent No.3. On 04.08.2011 the following order was passed:- “ This petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner-father against his only daughter. Learned counsel for the parties have taken a very sagacious approach and suggested to the court that they would act as mediators and try to settle the matter. This court sincerely hopes that his comes about. Adjourned to 08.09.2011 to enable the counsel for the parties to settle the matter.” Thereafter the matter was adjourned at joint request to 08.09.2011. On 13.10.2011 the following order was passed:- “ Learned counsel informed the Court that it has been agreed that the respondents will pay a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs to the father/petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be satisfied with the same and he would have no objection if the factum of this compromise is utilised by respondents No. 2 and 3 to get this FIR quashed. Adjourned to 16.11.2011.” CRM-M No. 14156 of 2011 -2- On 16.11.2011 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 states that his clients need little more time to arrange money as per the agreement arrived at on 13.10.2011. Allowed as prayed for. Adjourned to 19.12.2011” Today learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has backtracked and states that he requires some time to file reply. As per learned counsel a prayer for canellation of anticipatory bail would not lie since the petitioners have been granted regular bail. He has relied upon Ramathal & Ors. v. Inspector of Police & Anr. reported as 2009(12) SCC 721 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside an order because an onerous and unreasonable condition had been placed therein. In my considered opinion both these augments are bound to fail in view of the fact that the order dated 13.10.2011 was an agreed order and because of the fact that respondents No. 2 and 3 have in the considered opinion of this Court tried to overreach even this Court. The order under Section 437 Cr.P.C. was a consequential order to that passed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prayer for cancellation of the anticipatory bail cannot be made. The petition is allowed., The order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the trial Court is set aside. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE December 19, 2011 sunita