JUDGMENT :

KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482(2) and 528 of BNSS has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Court to respondent No.1 in case FIR No.50 dated 27.03.2025 under Sections 85, 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, registered at Police Station Khanna City II, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana vide impugned order dated 21.08.2025.

2. The brief factual matrix relevant for the adjudication of the present petition is that the above stated FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the petitioner, levelling allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment against the respondent No. 1 therein. Respondent No.1, who had solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 12.12.2016, initially approached this Court by way of a petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR, wherein vide order dated 22.07.2025, this Court referred the parties to mediation without examining the case on merits.

3. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court, while disposing of the Special leave to appeal, directed vide order dated 06.08.2025 that till the conclusion of mediation/pendency of the said proceedings, no coercive steps would be taken against respondent No. 1 in connection with the aforesaid FIR, while clarifying that the said protection was granted solely to facilitate mediation and without consideration of the merits of the case. Thereafter, respondent No.1 approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by way of an application for anticipatory bail. Vide order dated 21.08.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the said application in view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, observing that no apprehension of arrest subsisted at that stage. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been preferred.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from non-application of mind. It is contended that the Court below has merely relied upon the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, without independently examining the merits of the application for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the protection granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was limited in nature and intended solely to facilitate mediation, as is evident from the express terms of the order. The learned Court below, however, failed to appreciate the limited scope of such protection and erroneously disposed of the anticipatory bail application on that basis. Learned counsel also submits that the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable, having been filed through a Special Power of Attorney holder who is himself an accused in the same FIR. This material aspect, though specifically raised, has not been considered by the Court below. On these grounds, it is contended that the impugned order is unsustainable and the protection extended to respondent No. 1 deserves to be set aside.

Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.1

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not amount to a grant of anticipatory bail on merits, but is merely a disposal of the application in light of the interim protection already granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is contended that since no adjudication on merits has taken place and no substantive relief of anticipatory bail has been granted, the present petition seeking cancellation of bail is misconceived and not maintainable.

Submissions on behalf of the State

6. Learned State counsel submits that respondent No. 1 has not joined the investigation despite issuance of notices by the investigating agency. It is further submitted that the mediation proceedings between the parties have not culminated in any settlement. Learned