Crl.M.No.M-27125 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-27125 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 15, 2010 Harpreet Kaur .....Petitioner v. Mohinder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.K.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.48366 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-27125 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is for cancellation of anticipatory bail already granted to respondent nos.1 to 5 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in FIR No.155 dated 29.7.2010, under Sections 420, 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Raikot, Police District Ludhiana Rural, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which concession of anticipatory bail was granted to respondents-accused Nos.1 to 5. Respondent no.1 is grand father of husband of complainant. He is an old person of 87 years of age. Respondent no.2 is sister of mother-in- law of the complainant. Respondent no.3 is brother of father-in-law of the complainant. Respondent no.4 is son of brother of father-in-law of the complainant and respondent no.5 is wife of son of brother of father-in-law of the complainant. In these days there is general tendency to name and rope in all the relatives of husband, if matrimonial dispute arises. The Crl.M.No.M-27125 of 2010 (O&M) -2- respondents are being roped in because the real accused, i.e., husband and parents-in-law of the complainant-petitioner, left for Canada. However, even if husband and parents-in-law of the complainant cheated her, accused- respondent nos.1 to 5 cannot be held liable merely because they are related to the husband of the complainant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, has rightly and legally exercised the discretion and granted benefit of anticipatory bail to accused-respondent nos.1 to 5. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed. 15.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge