IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M- 33741 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.7.2010 Sukhwinder Kaur ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Hemender Goswami, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. **** ORDER The present petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner Sukhwinder Kaur for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 3.11.2009 in case FIR No. 247 dated 22.10.2009 under Sections 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 30.11.2009 and following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noted down: “ Contends that the order granting bail to the respondents was passed primarily taking into consideration the compromise which has been effected between the parties which, however, has not been honoured in toto. Further contends that in this Crl.Misc. No.M- 33741 of 2009 [2] manner, the respondents have abused the process of law to secure the benefit of pre-arrest bail by misrepresenting the facts.” As per contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents No. 2 and 3 were granted bail on the basis of compromise effected between the parties but the same was not honoured in toto. This fact was not disclosed at the time of granting pre-arrest bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have abused the process of law to secure benefit of pre- arrest bail by misrepresenting the facts. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that by raising wrong contention by the learned counsel for the present petitioner, notice of motion was issued by the Hon'ble Court whereas no such compromise was effected between the parties after registration of the FIR and the alleged compromise was prior to registration of FIR. There was no misrepresentation by the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 before the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana while allowing the bail to respondents No. 2 and 3 has passed the following order: “As regards the bail application of applicant No.1, I am of the considered opinion that applicant No.1 being the husband of the complainant is primarily responsible for the execution of the agreements dated 8.6.2009 and 14.6.2009. The compromise dated 8.6.2009 which is part Crl.Misc. No.M- 33741 of 2009 [3] of the police file was executed by applicant No.1. Thereafter the compromise dated 14.6.2009 was again executed by applicant No.1. After having executed two agreements, the applicant No.1 has resiled from both of them and as such a person does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation of applicant No.1 is necessary for the free and fair investigation of the case. Hence the bail application of applicant No.1 is dismissed and bail application of applicants No. 2 and 3 is allowed subject to the compliance of provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” As per order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, bail was declined to husband of the complainant as he was responsible for execution of the agreements dated 8.6.2009 and 14.6.2009, as the said agreements were executed by husband only and later-on, he resiled from the said agreements and bail was declined to him. The application filed by him was dismissed. Since the agreement was not signed by respondents No.2 and 3, dowry articles were already received by the complainant and both the respondents had joined investigation, bail was granted to them. The present petitioner has raised only one contention that respondents No. 2 and 3 had resiled from the compromise entered into between the parties and since no agreement was entered with respondents No. 2 and 3, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned Crl.Misc. No.M- 33741 of 2009 [4] counsel for the petitioner. It is a settled proposition of law that the factors for cancellation of bail are totally different vis-a-vis factors for granting bail. This view has been affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the judgment reported in Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349. For the reasons recorded above, there is no ground to interfere in the order dated 3.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, granting anticipatory bail to respondents No. 2 and 3. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 14, 2010. raghav