HEENA GARG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heena Garg, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Rohit Garg, respondent no.2 vide order dated 26.05.2012(Annexure P-2) by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in a case registered by way of FIR No. 26 dated 23.03.2012 at Police Station City Malerkotla, District Sangrur, for an offence punishable under section 498-A IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the anticipatory bail has been granted to respondent no.2 vide order dated 26.05.2012, a copy of which is Annexure P-2. According to him, the main consideration for allowing this application had been that the parents of respondent no.2 were granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 01.05.2012. He has further submitted that vide order dated 01.05.2012, notice of motion had been issued in the petition brought by the parents of respondent no.2 and they were granted the concession of interim bail in the meanwhile.

(3.) According to him, learned court below has, thus, misconstrued the order dated 01.05.2012 of this court and has fallen in error in granting bail to respondent no.2. Even there is claimed misuse of the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention in this regard to para no.8(v) of the petition where he has mentioned that on 20.06.2012 at about 6.00 PM respondent no.2 followed the petitioner in Moti Bazar Malerkotla and threatened her of elimination if she opposed the anticipatory bail of his parents pending in the High Court or pursued the criminal case against them.