1. Above referred four petitions are filed by the petitioner Kanika Narang Nee Pasricha, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respective respondents namely Manrich Singh Narang, Ritika Mishra, Jatinder Kour Narang & Rajinder Singh Narang, in the aforesaid petitions, vide order dated 05th February, 2010 in FIR No. 17/2010, P.S. Crime Against Woman Cell under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order dated 05.02.2010 granting bail to the respondents named above and submitted that on reading of the bail order, it would be seen that it is bereft of reasoning, as such, the order is liable to be quashed. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Gajanand Aggarwal Vs. State of Orissa, 2006 CriLJ 4618 (SC), Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs. Munna & Ors., 2009 CriLJ 833 (SC) and Puran Vs. Rambila & Ors., 2001 CriLJ 2566 (SC). Learned counsel submitted that perusal of the status report filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Police Unit for Women & Children, Nanakpura, New Delhi prima facie, shows the commission of offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC read with Section 34 IPC by the respondents named above. The dowry articles misappropriated by the respondents are yet to be recovered and the matter is pending investigation, therefore, the Trial Court ought not have granted bail to the respondents, particularly when their custodial interrogation may be required for recovery of the misappropriated articles.

3. Learned Sh. Sewa Ram, Advocate appearing for the above noted respondents in respective petitions, on the contrary, has submitted that the Trial Court granted bail to the respondents after due application of mind and he has referred to the merits of the case in the order. Learned counsel submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting anticipatory bail to the above named respondents in respective petitions vide impugned order dated 05th February, 2010 has referred to an Agreement dated 27th July, 2009 signed by the petitioner and her parents and also to certain SMSs allegedly sent by the complainant to the respondent Manrich Singh Narang on various dates, which clearly indicates that he has considered the merits of the case before passing order of anticipatory bail in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge perhaps has refrained from reproducing the contents of the SMSs in his order for the reason that those SMSs are abusive and the language used is not civil. Thus, he has pressed for rejection of the petition for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents.

4. I have considered the rival contentions. There can be no dispute about the legal position that the High Court has ample power under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel the bail order granted to the any person and direct his arrest. The issue which arises for determination is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting anticipatory bail, considered merits of the case? In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, which inter alia, reads thus:

“Heard. File perused.

Complainant was married to Manrich on 25.5.09 according to Hindu rights and ceremonies. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this court to various SMSs allegedly sent by the complainant to Manrich on various dates. He has also drawn the attention of this court to the agreement dated 27.7.09 signed by the complainant and her parents.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, applicant be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, on his furnishing PB and SB in the sum of `10,000/-to the satisfaction of IO/SHO concerned and subject to the condition that applicant shall join the investigation as and