204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRM-M-13621-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 Shaman Mittal ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-15) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby the order dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure P-10) has been modified by learned Revisional Court in FIR No.843, dated 16.12.2022, registered under Section

323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC at Police Station Sector-32-33, Karnal.

2. Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner while giving the facts of the case submitted that it is a case where the petitioner got married to respondent No.3-Nipun Garg on 05.12.2019. However, as the private respondents were pressurizing the petitioner and her family members for dowry articles and there were various allegations pertaining to cruelty, consequently after some time, the relationship between the petitioner and her husband turned sour and strained. He further submitted that thereafter the petitioner got registered an FIR No.843, dated 16.12.2022, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A & 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal. The matter was investigated by the investigating agency and after registration of the FIR, both respondents No.2 & 3 filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. The aforesaid application for grant of anticipatory bail was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) wherein the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer was directed to release respondents No.2 & 3 on interim bail as per conditions enshrined under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

3. Thereafter, both the private respondents against whom the cancellation of anticipatory bail was sought travelled abroad a number of times despite the fact that their application for grant of permission from learned trial Court for travelling abroad was dismissed as withdrawn by themselves. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-4, the aforesaid order was made absolute in the same terms and conditions as provided in the interim bail and the anticipatory bail application was disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on 14.02.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the completion of investigation when the police presented the challan, respondents No.2 & 3 were present before learned trial Court and learned Court below vide Annexure P-16 on 02.03.2023 granted regular bail to them by observing that since respondents No.2 & 3 are already on anticipatory bail, they were directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.60,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. He also submitted that thereafter respondents No.2 & 3 furnished the aforesaid bail bonds as per the directions issued by learned trial Court. He further submitted that the reason for grant of regular bail was that respondents No.2 & 3 were already on anticipatory bail and that itself was the ground on which they were granted regular bail. He also submitted that at the time when respondents No.2 & 3 were on anticipatory bail, they violated the terms and conditions of the interim bail which was granted to them by imposing the conditions to the satisfaction of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. but respondents No.2 & 3 travelled abroad on the business trip without getting prior permission of the Court and therefore, the petitioner moved an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.2 & 3.

5. The aforesaid application for cancellation of anticipatory bail was filed before learned Chief Judi