The main legal point established in the judgment is that while bail can be revoked if relevant factors are not considered, there must be compelling circumstances for its cancellation. The court emphasized the need for a thorough consideration of relevant factors before granting or revoking bail.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. Accused Rajwinder Kaur (Respondent No. 2 herein) was allowed anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P6) by the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in a case arising out of FIR No. 66 dated 06.05.2021 registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulations) Act, 2014.

2. Present petitioner Reeta Kumari is the complainant of the FIR and by virtue of this petition filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. she has prayed for cancellation of the bail as granted to respondent No. 2.

3. FIR was lodged against six named persons including the petitioner and some unknown persons, as per which, complainant was cheated the amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- plus 1400 US dollar, for sending her son Jatin Kumar to Portugal. As per the allegations, one Gurdeep Singh had assured to send the son of the complainant to Portugal with a work permit visa, projecting that Rajwinder Kaur (respondent No. 2) and her daughter Sarabjit Kaur were also being sent to Portugal. Later on, these persons, namely Gurdeep Singh, Rajwinder Kaur and Sarbjit Kaur, came to the house of the complainant and deal for Rs. 8 lakh was struck. As per allegations, an amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- was paid from time to time. Son of the petitioner along with Gurdeep Singh, Rajwinder Kaur, Sarabjit Kaur, and Mohammad Sadiq Khan flew from Jaipur to Armenia on 25.10.2019 and stayed there till 14.12.2019 and then taken to Georgia. At that place, the dollars worth Rs. 1 lakh were forcibly taken from son of the complainant by the accused including respondent No. 2. After much struggle, son of the petitioner managed to return to India on 06.12.2019. Petitioner-complainant contacted the concerned persons, but they refused to return the money and rather, threatened to kill her and her son.

4. After registration of the FIR, similarly placed accused Gurdeep Singh applied for pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure P2). Said Gurdeep Singh then approached this High Court by filing CRM-M- 46353-2021. Vide order dated 03.11.2021, this Court granted concession of interim bail to him subject to the condition that he will bring a demand draft of Rs. 1 lakh in the name of the complainant on the next date of hearing i.e., 18.01.2022. However, in the meantime, respondent No. 2 (Rajwinder Kaur) taking benefit of the interim bail to the co-accused, applied for bail before ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P6). Subsequently, since co-accused Gurdeep Singh failed to bring the demand draft of Rs. 1 lakh in terms of order dated 03.11.2021 passed in CRM-M-46353-2021, his petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court on 18.02.2022 (Annexure P8).

5. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the petitioner-complainant that while granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2, the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge gave the reasoning that co-accused Gurdeep Singh had already been granted anticipatory bail by this High Court. It is contended that case of respondent No. 2 is at par with Gurdeep Singh and since the bail petition of Gurdeep Singh has been dismissed by this Court on 18.02.2022, therefore, the bail to respondent No. 2 is not justified. It is also contended that ld. Additional Sessions Judge was not made aware about the fact that interim bail granted to Gurdeep Singh was a conditional one. It is urged that ld. Court acted in a mechanical manner while granting the concession of anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 and so, the same deserves to be withdrawn.

6. Upon notice of motion being issued, nobody turned on behalf of respondent No. 2. Rather, she refused to receive the notice. Respondent No. 1/State has not filed any reply. However, ld. State counsel has suppor