RAM CHAND GUPTA - (1.) CRL.M.No.25171 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.No.M-12388 of 2012 The present petition filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 in case FIR No.231, dated 15.12.2011, under Sections 364, 382, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kapurthala City, District Kapurthala.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which application filed on behalf of respondent no.2 for grant of anticipatory bail was allowed. Bail was granted to respondent no.2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala by observing as under:- "Keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned Addl.PP, learned counsel for the applicant/accused and from the perusal of record it is clear that applicant/accused has been alleged to have pushed the complainant into the Alto car whereas it has been vehemently argued that it is complainant herself who had gone with applicant/accused as per her own sweet will. As per the statement of complainant suffered before the police, two persons were found sitting in the Alto car when she was pushed inside the said car. There is p hone call details regarding the conversation of complainant with applicant/accused and perusal of phone call details shows that both the applicant/accused and complainant were in friendly relations with each other and were having so many phone calls. The prosecution has not given the details of gold ornaments alleged to be stolen by the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused has denied the allegations. Moreover there allegations are yet to be proved. In these circumstances, it is a fit case where benefit of pre-arrest bail can be granted in favour of applicant-accused. Keeping in view the circumstances, the interim bail already granted to the applicant/accused on 8.2.2012 is ordered to be made absolute and applicant/accused Mohinder Singh is ordered to be released on pre-arrest bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer subject to the conditions that he shall make himself available for interrogation before the police as and when required; he shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person for dissuading him from disclosing the facts of the case; he shall not leave India without the prior permission. Record of the present bail application be consigned to Judicial Record Room." It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per statement of police, custody of respondent no.2 was required to disclose the names of co-accused and despite that he was granted bail. However, there is no allegation that respondent no.2 has misused the concession of bail granted to him. Hence, merely, on the ground that bail application was opposed by learned State counsel and despite that learned trial Court granted him bail, it cannot be said that it is a ground for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Amarjit Singh for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2-accused is hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.;