The legal principle established is that strong and cogent reasons are required to deprive the liberty of an accused, and the prescribed procedure for seeking arrest or cancellation of bail must be followed.

JUDGMENT :

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents No.2, 4 & 5 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 24.04.2019 (Annexure P-17) in case bearing FIR No.138 dated 19.08.2015, under Sections 337, 427 and 307 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur.

2. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 02.08.2023, this Court had directed that the present petition be also treated as a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in this way the present petition was treated as also under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the order (Annexure P-17) by which the anticipatory bail was granted to the private respondents No.2, 4 & 5 has been challenged by the petitioners on merits.

3. The aforesaid FIR was lodged on the basis of statement of one Prem Chand by stating that he was informed that his son-in-law, namely, Satinder Kumar @ Honey-petitioner No.2 and his brother, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Happy-petitioner No.1 were shot by gun and he was taken to the spot where he saw the aforesaid two persons, who are the petitioners in the present case, lying on a cot at Har Wali Road in the phirni of Katron. Thereafter, petitioner No.1-Sunil Kumar @ Happy told him that the persons who were there on the spot, had fired gun shots at him and beaten him up and they must be caught. The video was also recorded in this regard. Thereafter, the accused persons who were the police officials started driving the car of petitioner No.1 and the complainant came in front of the car and was dragged to the side by four police officials. The complainant saw six persons and they were drunk. Afterwards, some other police officials reached at the spot and when the complainant reached at the spot, the firing of the gun shots had already been stopped. Petitioner No.1 had told the complainant that one car was chasing them and they were firing gun shots and they came to know that in fact in the previous village there was gun shot firing between some bad elements and police officials, which had hit some police officials.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the police lodged an FIR under Section 307 IPC on 19.08.2015. Thereafter, investigation was carried on and during the investigation, Section 307 IPC was deleted by the police and the challan was presented under Sections 337 & 427 of the IPC on 27.09.2018. The private respondents No.2, 4 & 5, who were the accused persons, were released on bail. At the time of presentation of the challan, they also furnished bail bonds in the learned trial Court. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution for commitment of the case in the learned Court of Sessions at Sangrur since according to the prosecution, offence under Section 307 IPC was made out but the police had deleted the offence earlier. Thereafter, offence under Section 307 IPC was added. On the addition of Section 307 IPC, respondents No.2, 4 & 5, who were already on bail, they filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Session Court. The learned Additional Session Judge, Sangrur vide impugned order dated 24.04.2019, granted anticipatory bail to respondents No.2, 4 & 5. The present petition has been filed by the injured persons for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sangrur as aforesaid. However, vide order dated 02.08.2023, this petition was also treated as petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the aforesaid order itself has been challenged.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned Additional Session Judge, Sangrur has erroneously granted anticipatory bail to respondents No.2, 4 & 5 and the same liable to be cancelled. While substantiating his arguments he submitted that it is a case where the petit