Crl. Misc. No.M-2175 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-2175 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: December 05, 2011. Seema Budhiraja .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG., Haryana. Mr.K.S.Nalwa, Advocate, for the complainant. M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner seeks the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent Nos.2 & 3. Respondent No.2 is stated to be a war widow having a daughter aged 16 years, whereas respondent No.3, is married sister-in-law of the complainant-petitioner having a disabled son. It is claimed that she has got a separate residence and that she is working in Municipal Corporation Delhi. Taking into consideration the above said circumstances and the nature of the allegations, the Additional Sessions Judge, has granted the concession of pre-arrest bail to respondent Nos.2 & 3. Counsel for the petitioner-complainant has vehemently contended that the offence under Section 307 IPC, was . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-2175 of 2011 added in this case subsequently and that the allegations of beating are against the husband as well as respondent Nos.2 & 3. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that respondent No.2, has wrongly been noticed as war widow in the order granting pre-arrest bail to her. Counsel for the complainant submits that respondent No.2, has filed a suit against her in-laws regarding property mentioning therein that her husband had died in an accident. I have heard the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner-complainant as well as gone through the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.12.2010 and I am of the opinion that the grounds for cancellation of bail are absolutely irrelevant to the merits of the case. There is no specific injury attributed to respondent Nos.2 & 3 which could warrant conviction under Section 307 IPC. The brother of respondent Nos.2 & 3, after having been arrested has been granted the concession of regular bail. I do not find any ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 & 3. Dismissed. Nothing mentioned in this order will affect the merits of the case before the trial Court. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 05, 2011. rka . . . 2