Crl.Misc. No.M-20398 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-20398 of 2011. Date of decision: July 11, 2011. Shallie Saini. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of U.T. and others. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.G.C.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner is a complainant in complaints Annexure P1 & P2, submitted to the Station House Officer (SHO), Sector 39, Chandigarh. Respondent Nos.2 to 4, apprehending arrest had submitted an application for concession of pre-arrest bail. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, on the statement of ASI Kuldip Singh of Women Cell, Chandigarh, that no criminal case has yet been registered on the said complaint has ordered that in case the respondents are required to be arrested in a case registered on the basis of the complaints, they will be given 5 days notice before making their arrests. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a photocopy of the attested power of attorney by respondent Nos.2 to 4 to submit that signatures of Manju respondent No.4, are forged, as . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-20398 of 2011 such no relief can be granted to the respondents and that the allegations are very serious. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the application for pre-arrest bail filed by the private respondents had been decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances that the matter is still under investigation in the complaints which were filed in May 2011. The relief granted by the trial Court seems not to be in exercise of discretion beyond the jurisdiction but any order passed regarding the grant of bail can be again looked into as per the provisions of Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. by the same Court. The application for cancellation of bail can even be filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. before a Court of Session. In view of the said provision of law, in the interest of propriety, it is ordered that it will be open to the petitioner to move the Court which had granted the relief to the private respondents. This application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to bring the actual facts before the Court which has granted the relief to the private respondents. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 11, 2011. rka . . . 2