vr- •J K 16 % 20.01.2011 Present: Mr, Pramod Ahuja, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the State along with SI Rakesh, P.S. Jamia Nagar. Mr. Javed Hashmi, Adv. for respondent + CrL M.C. 3464/2010 * By this petition under Section 439(2) of the Gode of Griminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent nos. 2 and 3 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Respondent No. 3 is father of respondent No. 2. Engagement ceremony of daughter of petitioner and respondent No. 2 took place on 17th December, 2009. Marriage ceremony was fixed for 6^11 March, 2010. It is alleged that before the date of marriage, engagement was broken by respondent nos. 2 and 3 since their demand of ^5 lacs was not met. Gifts given to respondent no.2, his father and other relatives in the shape of gold jewelry and cash were not returned. On the complaint of petitioner, FIR No. 120/2010 under Section 406 IPG read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been registered at the Police Station Jamia Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that without return of gifts articles and cash given in the engagement bail has been granted to the respondents. Thus, Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave error in granting bail to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It Signing Date:16.08.2024 17:03:05 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified o is further contended that after respondent no. 2 and 3 had been released on anticipatoiy bail, they sent some young boys at the residence of the petitioner to threaten him that in case the FIR was not withdrawn, he would face dire consequences. On these grounds cancellation of bail has been sought. First of all non-retum of dowry articles by itself cannot be a ground for declining bail. It is the severity of the allegations which have to be considered. In this case, as per the status report filed by the police, petitioner had refused to join the investigation regarding recovery of gift articles from the house of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, house of the respondents was searched in presence of two public witnesses but nothing was recovered. It is well settled that a bail once granted cannot be cancelled unless the compelling circumstances are disclosed necessitating cancellation of bail. In Savitri Agarwal and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2009 Crl. L.J. 4290, Supreme Court has held that veiy cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for order iW directing cancellation of bail already granted. Rejection of bail in a non- bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail had to be considered or dealt with on different basis. In my view, cancellation of bail cannot be done in a routine manner. In this case, petitioner has failed to disclose any such compelling circumstances. As regards allegation of threat is concerned, in the status report, it has been categorically stated that inquiries were made and no such threat 4. perception was found. Mere bald allegations in this regard Would not be sufficient to cancel the bail granted to the respondent. For the forging reasons, I do not find it to be a fit case to cancel the bail of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. A.K. PATHAK, J. JANUARY 20, 2011/ga