Crl. Misc. No.M-27136 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-27136 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 7, 2011 Sushma …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Rajnish Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is a complainant in a case of assault against her husband Surinder. Surinder alongwith his other family members had treated the complainant/ petitioner with cruelty. Vide order dated July 28, 2011, the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, has granted the concession of pre- arrest bail to unmarried sister-in-law of the petitioner. The Additional Sessions Judge while granting the concession of pre-arrest bail to respondent No.2 has observed that the offence, if any, alleged against respondent No.2 would constitute an offence under Section 323 IPC only. Crl. Misc. No.M-27136 of 2011 [2] Taking into consideration the general nature of allegations of demand of dowry levelled against respondent No.2, the said Court has granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the power of attorney filed by respondent No.2 was not even signed by her and as a matter of fact it was signed by her brother. An application for bail was not accompanied by a properly executed affidavit. The affidavit had been signed by a neighbourer of the complainant. I have considered the technical irregularities pointed out by counsel for the petitioner and considered the part attributed to respondent No.2. There is no allegation that respondent No.2, in any manner, has misused the concession of pre-arrest bail granted to her. Besides this, it appears to be a case where all the family members have been roped in. Respondent No.2 has been shown to be resident of Jaipur. The said circumstance is also indicative of the probability of respondent No.2 having not, in any manner, involved in the offence. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Gurdarshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (3) RCR (Crl.) 165, in support of his contention. It was observed in the said judgment that an anticipatory bail application on behalf of accused through power of attorney is not competent. The ratio of the judgment in Gurdarshan Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. So far as technical ground Crl. Misc. No.M-27136 of 2011 [3] raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the power of attorney was not signed by respondent No.2 is concerned, the said plea could have been raised before the Court concerned at the time of arguments. Even otherwise, the said plea, at this stage, cannot be made a ground to cancel the bail which has been granted to respondent No.2. No ground is made out for cancellation of bail. Dismissed. September 7, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE