R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the grant of bail, vide order dated 4-2-2010, by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer to the accused respondents, the petitioner has filed this application for cancellation of bail.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the brief facts of the case are that on 27-4-2009, the petitioner, Dr. Jitendra Pal Kaur had married the respondent No.1, Dr. Rajendra Singh. The petitioner claims that from the very beginning, the marriage was on the rocks as she was abused, both mentally and physically, by the respondent No.1, her husband, and respondents No.2, 3 & 4, his family members. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 left for Kuwait on 27- 9-2009, and has not returned ever since then. Since 27-9-2009, the parties have parted their ways. Subsequently on 4-12-2009, the respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner in a Court at Batala. Subsequently, on 11-1-2010, the petitioner filed a report at Mahila Thana, Ajmer against the respondents No.1 to 4, for offences under sections 498-A and 406 IPC, and Section 4/6 Dowry Prohibition Act. Since the petitioner had to face the case at Batala, as well as the criminal case pending at Ajmer, she moved a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only stayed the proceedings of the case pending at Batala, but has also issued notice to the respondent No.1. Meanwhile, the respondents moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, who vide order dated 4-2-2010 has granted the bail to the accused respondents. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused respondents, she has moved the present application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
(3.) Mr. S.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that despite the fact that the respondent No.1 was working at Kuwait, while filing the application under Section 9 of the Act at Batala, he has claimed that he was in India. But it is not true that he was in India. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge has granted the anticipatory bail ostensibly on the ground that respondent No.1 has filed a case under section 9 of the Act and the same is pending at Batala. According to learned counsel, a fraud is being played by the respondents on the Court. Since the respondent No.1 was not in India, he could not have filed the case at Batala. Meanwhile, the learned Sessions Judge is influenced by the fact an application for restitution of conjugal rights is pending. Since the learned Sessions Judge has been swayed by a fraud, being committed by respondents, the anticipatory bail deserves to be cancelled. Moreover, since respondent No.1 is already stationed at Kuwait, learned Sessions Judge was unjustified in imposing the condition that the respondent No.1 cannot leave India without prior permission of the Court. Therefore, the imposition of the said condition clearly reveals the non-application of mind. Hence, the bail granted to the accused respondents deserves to be cancelled.;