PIARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents no.4 and 5 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 21.2.2013, Annexure P1, in protest petition-cum-complaint Annexure P4, dated 19.7.2012 filed in case FIR No.22, dated 17.2.2012 registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC at Police Station Sri Hargobindpur, Annexure P3.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdapsur, vide which anticipatory bail was granted to respondents no.4 and 5.

(3.) Briefly stated, complaint was lodged by petitioner with the police on the basis of which FIR No.22 dated 17.2.2012 under Sections 498A/406 IPC was registered against respondents no.4 and 5 and another accused. After investigation, police filed cancellation report. On notice being issued to present petitioner-complainant by learned Illaqa Magistrate, he filed protest petition-cum-complaint under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, Annexure P4, in which prayer was made that accused persons be summoned and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of law. The said protest petition-cum-complaint was accepted by learned Magistrate vide Annexure P2 and respondents no.4 and 5 were ordered to be summoned for offences under Sections 498-A/406 IPC vide order dated 14.1.2013 to face trial. Respondents no.4 and 5 filed application for anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge,Gurdaspur, on the plea that they were ready to appear before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala, pursuant to the summons issued to them. As the offences were triable by Magistrate, the application was allowed and respondents no.4 and 5 were directed to surrender before learned trial Court within 15 days and were ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of trial Court. However, counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to tell this Court as to whether they appeared before the trial Court pursuant to the said order or not. However, as there is no such complaint that they did not appear, the only inference which can be drawn is that they must have appeared pursuant to order dated 21.2.2013 and must have been granted bail.