HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.P.M.P.No.10866 of 2011 in Crl.P.No.6568 of 2011 and Crl.P.M.P.No.10867 of 2011 in Crl.P.No.7078 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner who is the de facto complainant seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to A.1 and A.2 by this Court in a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 494 and 496 IPC. Main grievance of the petitioner is that after granting anticipatory bails to A.1 and A.2 by this Court, the petitioner is facing threats from public telephone calls and by some unknown persons, of dire consequences if she does not withdraw her cases. The petitioner gave report to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor in that regard. The police would enquire and do the needful in that matter. It is not the petitioner’s case that either A.1 or A.2 threatened her with dire consequences. Prior to and after anticipatory bail, both A.1 and A.2 were not in custody at all. A.1 has been working as Senior Section Engineer, South Central Railways at Guntakal. A.2 is a woman. The alleged apprehension of the petitioner about threats, is imaginary and not real. Contention of the petitioner’s counsel that A.1 and A.2 suppressed to file all rejection orders passed by the Sessions Judge on their anticipatory bail applications, is also untenable because anticipatory bail applications are no appeals or revisions against rejection orders of anticipatory bail by the lower Court ie. Sessions Court. This Court would see whether the accused approached the Sessions Court in the first instance or not, before seeking anticipatory bail before this Court. Filing of an order of rejection of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, is only a formality. There are no grounds either in law or in facts to cancel anticipatory bails granted by this Court to A.1 and A.2 in this crime. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 27th January, 2012. PNV