Criminal Misc. No. M-30148 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-30148 of 2009 Date of decision : December 07, 2011 Kuldeep Kaur ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. SS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent no. 1 Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vidushi Gaur, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent no. 3 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Complainant Kuldeep Kaur has filed this petition under section 482 read with section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no. 2 and 3/accused by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 19.9.2009, Annexures P/1 and P/2 in case FIR No. 67 dated 24.5.2009, under sections 452, 354, 323, 506, 34 IPC and Criminal Misc. No. M-30148 of 2009 -2- section 3 of the Act, registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of section 18 of the Act, provision of section 438 Cr.P.C. relating to anticipatory bail is not applicable to offence under the Act. Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 contended that prima facie no case for any offence under the Act is made out. I have carefully considered the contentions. Impugned orders granting anticipatory bail were passed more than two years ago. There is no averment regarding misuse of the concession of anticipatory bail by respondents no. 2 and 3. Keeping in view the same, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent nos. 2 and 3. It may be added that it was stated before the Sessions Court on behalf of the State that custodial interrogation of respondent nos. 2 and 3 was not required. Accordingly keeping in view all the circumstances, I do not find sufficient ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent nos. 2 and 3 by learned Sessions Court vide impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2. Accordingly, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 07, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'