NIDHI JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/wife seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge by order dated 20th December, 2006 wherein it was held that the respondents No.2 to 8 be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned. The respondents No.2 to 8 were also directed to join investigation with the IO as and when called.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that after the grant of anticipatory bail by order dated 20th December, 2006 there has not been any violation of the terms and conditions on which the anticipatory bail was granted to the respondents No.2 to 8. The respondents No. 2 to 8 have joined investigation as and when directed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the complaint dated 17th February, 2006 was filed on behalf of the petitioner by her father, another complaint was filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 8 pursuant to which the petitioner had to go to the police station where some sort of understanding was arrived at between the complainant and respondents No.2 to 8 pursuant to which the complaint filed by respondents No. 2 to 8 was withdrawn by them. The learned counsel contends that filing of complaint prior to grant of anticipatory bail was an attempt by the respondents No.2 to 8 to harass and pressurize the petitioner which is a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents No. 2 to 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought cancellation of anticipatory bail on the ground that the fact about the divorce petition filed by the husband, respondent No.2 was not considered as that has led to harassment of the petitioner and her two children.