Crl. Misc. No. M-18472 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-18472 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 14, 2011 Ranjit Kaur Bajwa …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.T.P.S. Tung, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2-Gulwinder Singh by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The allegation against respondent No.2 is that he had solemnized marriage with complainant on December 1, 2002 who had obtained a fake passport in his name. It is alleged that he had two passports as such he committed offence of cheating and offence of forged documents. Crl. Misc. No. M-18472 of 2010 [2] I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. The challan has already been presented. Allegation against respondent No.2 is that he had obtained two passports and he stands deported from U.K. Grievance of the petitioner through instant petition filed by her through her attorney is that respondent No.2 has been able to connive with the investigating agency which has already presented the challan without collecting the material regarding the possession of second passport by respondent No.2. It has been informed by Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on the instructions of ASI Amarjit Singh, that enquiry in the matter regarding respondent No.2 having obtained second passport under the name of Balwinder Singh is still continuing. Respondent No.2 does not seem to have misused the liberty granted to him. Besides this, the enquiry regarding the second passport is being undertaken. It will be open to the investigating agency to present supplementary challan under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. but no ground is made out to cancel the bail bonds. Besides this, the petition through an attorney of complainant who herself is residing in Canada does not seem to be maintainable for cancellation of bail. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the application for pre-arrest bail was filed, respondent No.2 was not in India. Counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 at present is in India and that he has surrendered the passport pursuant Crl. Misc. No. M-18472 of 2010 [3] to the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar while granting pre-arrest bail to respondent No.2. In view of condition No .(iii) imposed upon respondent No.2 that he would not leave India without the permission of the Court and is already surrendered his passport, no ground is made out to cancel the bail already granted to respondent No.2. Dismissed. November 14, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE