IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 18.03.2025 Meena Kumari . . . Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner ****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

The instant petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS read with Section

528 of BNSS has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 and 3 vide order dated 06.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ferozepur in case FIR No.13 dated 21.04.2023 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that daughter of the petitioner had got registered an FIR No. 13 dated 21.04.2023 under Sections 498- A, 406, 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Women Cell Ferozepur, District Ferozepur against the private respondents and others. He submits that the complainant herself has moved to Canada but has issued a special Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner, her mother to pursue the further proceedings. He contends that respondents No.2 and 3 were granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 26.05.2023. Further, the perusal of the impugned order shows that the recovery of the articles was to be effected from the respondents No.2 and 3 and without doing the same, their bail application was allowed and the articles are still in their possession. Learned counsel also submits that respondents No. 2 and 3, after being released on bail in the present case, are trying to pressurize the petitioner to enter into compromise, to save themselves from criminal proceedings. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petition is decided in limine in order to save litigation cost of the private respondents and also to save the judicial time of the Court.

4. Perusal of the record shows that while granting anticipatory bail to respondents No. 2 and 3, learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ferozepur recorded that one gold Karra weighing about 1 tolla, one suit and Rs. 1100/- were entrusted to respondent No. 2 herein, Sahil Kharbanda @ Nitin and that recovery of gold karra was effected from him. Insofar as respondent No.3 herein, Palvi Kharbanda (married sister in law) is concerned, though recovery of kitty set had not yet been effected, but since there was medical record on file indicating that she was in family way (pregnant). It was under these circumstances that the private respondents herein were granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide impugned order dated 06.06.2023, subject to the conditions mentioned therein.

5. As per the settled proposition of law, once bail has been granted, it would require cogent and overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. The order granting bail can only be revoked by the Superior Court while granting the said concession ignored the relevant material available on record, as has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vipin Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC Online SSC 854.

6. In Ms. X vs The State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349)] observed that:

“Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, alr