IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M. No.22068-M of 2007 Date of Decision: 16.4.2007 Surjit Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others. ...Respondents. Present:- Mr.K.P.S.Sandhu,Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S.SARON, J.(ORAL) This petition under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( `Cr.P.C.' for short ) has been filed seeking cancellation of pre- arrest bail granted to respondents No.3 to 7 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint made by Surjit Singh (petitioner) against respondents No.3 to 7. It is alleged that respondents No.3 to 7 cheated the petitioner for a sum of Rs.12 lacs by fraudulently entering into an agreement to sell their land mearsuing 17 kanals in his favour. In terms of the agreement it was agreed that sale deed qua 6 killas of land would be executed on 11.5.2006 and sale deed in respect of the remaining land would be executed on 12.10.2006. The accused had also undertaken to obtain the signatures of Sarabjit Kaur daughter of Kulwant Singh and Sawinder Singh, on the agreement. However, the accused, it is alleged did not come to the office of the Sub Registrar, Khadoor Sahib, for registration of the sale deed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in her order dated 20.2.2007 has Crl.M. No.22068-M of 2007 -2- observed that the dispute between the parties relates to non compliance of agreement to sell. Documents were produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to show that the accused were in fact present for the purpose of getting the sale deed registered. It was observed that considering the civil nature of the dispute it would be appropriate to allow the application filed by the accused for their pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record I find no infirmity in the order granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. It is also appropriate to note that rejection of bail is on one footing but cancellation is a harsh order as its takes away the liberty of an individual and is not to be lightly resorted to. Besides, it has not been shown by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents No.3 to 7, in any manner, after the grant of pre arrest bail interfered with the due course of justice or attempted to tamper with the evidence or threatened the witnesses. While hearing an application seeking cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., the courts generally do not examine merits of the order granting the bail and it is primarily to be seen that whether the accused has mis-used the concession of bail that has been granted to him. No such material has been placed on the record or shown. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S.SARON) April 16,2007 JUDGE Reema