Crl. Misc. No.M-9459 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-9459 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 20, 2011 Meenakshi …..Petitioner Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate for Mr.P.K. Khindria, Advocate for U.T. Mr.R.S. Malhotra, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner Meenakshi has filed this petition under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of respondents No.2 to 5 granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated February 23, 2011 in FIR No.138 dated April 22, 2010 under Sections 325, 406, 498A, 34 IPC Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh. Crl. Misc. No.M-9459 of 2011 [2] The abovesaid respondents were granted the concession of pre-arrest bail on February 23, 2011. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh had granted pre-arrest bail to respondents No.2 to 5, for the following reasons:- i) the respondents had already been released on bail under Sections 325, 34 IPC and offences under Sections 406, 498A IPC had been added subsequently in earlier FIR No.137 of 2010; ii) the respondents, pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Court had joined investigation and granted the concession of interim bail; iii) the allegations in FIR No.138 does not indicate any specific allegations of dowry against all the accused; and iv) most of the dowry articles having been recovered, the interim bail deserves to be confirmed. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations levelled by the complainant, no fault can be found in the order of pre-arrest bail granted to the private respondents in second FIR especially when in first FIR i.e. FIR No.137 of 2010, the private respondents had been granted the concession of bail. It does not appear to be a case in which custodial interrogation is required. Respondents No.2 to 5 does not seem to have opposed the liberty granted to them. The circumstances for refusing the bail and for rejection of bail are different. Crl. Misc. No.M-9459 of 2011 [3] After thoroughly considering the allegations in both the FIRs registered against the respondents, there does not appear to be any ground to cancel the bail granted to respondents No.2 to 5. The petition for cancellation of bail is dismissed. September 20, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE