Crl.Misc No M- 9187 of 2010 Mangat Ram Vs. Krishan and others PRESENT: Mr.D.S.Bali, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Neha Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. M.Anshuman Dalal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. *** ORDER The present petition was filed by the petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 1 to 6 by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 25.2.2010. At the time of issuing notice of motion on 6.4.2010, the following contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was noted down: “In compliance of the directions of this Court dated 29.3.2010, an affidavit of Shri Jitender Singh, Advocate before the trial Court has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per affidavit of the Advocate before the trial Court, without showing the case in the cause list as well as in the supplementary cause list for that day, the case was taken up for hearing. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that three more FIRs were registered against the accused- respondents, who have been granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and contention in opposing the bail application has also wrongly been noted.” Crl.Misc No M- 9187 of 2010 [2] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents were granted bail inspite of the fact that 4 FIRs were registered against them and PO proceedings were pending against them. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that application for grant of bail was not listed in any cause list on that day and no notice whatsoever was given to the complainant. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no PO proceedings were pending against the respondents nor any FIR was registered against them. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.Bali took time to verify the fact. Mr.Mor, learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Lila Khan submits that even reply to the bail application was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge which is in the police file and contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit and bail cannot be cancelled on this ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court from which it could be inferred that respondents No.1 to 6 have not co-operated in the investigation or have in any manner abused the concession of bail granted to them. There is nothing on the record to show that bail was granted for some irrelevant factors which were not relevant for granting concession of bail. 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 Crl.Misc No M- 9187 of 2010 [3] [1995] 1 SCC 349. For the reasons recorded above, there is no ground to interfere in the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani, granting anticipatory bail to respondents No. 1 to 6. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 14, 2010 JUDGE raghav