Kaveri @ Pinki v. State & Anr.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail granted to Smt. Savitri Devi, Smt. Baby and Smt. Suman, in respect of FIR NO. 554/2007 u/S 498A/307/506/34 IPG registered by PS Shakarpur.

2. The ground for cancellation of bail which has been set-up by the petitioner/complainant in the petition is that the bail bonds/surety bonds of the accused persons are not on the judicial record.

3. Secondly, it has been stated that Naveen, husband of the complainant who is facing the trlal^has jumped the ball and since he Is being protected by the respondent nos. 2 to 4, the trial could not proceed further and, therefore, bail of respondent nos. 2 to 4 be cancelled.

4. It has also been contended that the respondents are threatening the petitioner and thus, misusing their liberty. 2011:DHC:12242 \

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records. At the outset, it must be stated that the present petition as framed is totally frivolous and not maintainable both under Sections 439 (2) as well as 482 Cr.P.C. Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C gives an occasion for cancellation of bail of an accused, if he is misusing his liberty after the bail has been granted to him. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the entire petition against any of the respondents that they have misused their liberty after the grant of bail.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused Naveen who happens to be the husband of the petitioner has absconded and therefore the trial cannot proceed and that he is being protected by respondent nos. 2 to 4 cannot be the ground for cancellation of bail. By making this as a ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner is assuming as if the Trial Court is not competent to take appropriate and coercive steps for-procuring the attendance of the absconding accused. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. So far as the absence of bail bond/surety bond from the Trial Court records is concerned, it is not averred in the entire petition that the same is attributable to any of the respondents. Therefore, this cannot be a ground for cancellation of the bail of the respondent nos. 2 to 4. So far as the question of giving threats is concerned there is not even a single report lodged with the Police which will show the contemporaneous conduct of the petitioner.

8. I, therefore, find no nnerit in the petition. Normally, I would have dismissed the petition with costs, however, keeping in view that the petitioner happens to be a lady, the same is dismissed without passing any order as to costs.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 KA (/ V.K. SHALI,J