Sarita Rani 2025.01.31 14:21 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRM-M-22693-2024 2025:PHHC:014396 3. Seeking cancella on of the aforesaid bail, it is contended by the pe oner that on 19.04.2024, she returned from Bahadurgarh to her house in village Pabra and found that in her bathroom, roof of the house, two light bulbs and exhaust fan and mesh of the roof were broken. Water tank of the house was also damaged. As she went to the roof of the house, her niece daughter-in-law Savita Devi (respondent No.4) alongwith Surinder Devi started abusing her and threatened to kill her. On the same day, respondent Nos.2 and 3 – Baljeet Sharma and Charanjit Sharma abused and threatened to kill her, regarding which she made a complaint to the police on 20.04.2024 for taking ac on. Police visited the spot and therea0er, at about 7.30 p.m., the respondents broke the wall of her house and threw the brick wall in the courtyard of her house. She saw respondents – Baljeet Sharma armed with sambal; Charanjit Sharma armed with s ck and Savita Devi armed with brick bat entering her house and running towards her raising lalkara. She raised alarm and ran towards the roof of the house and from the roof, she no ced that her neighbour – Khem Singh was making a video and then the above- said assailants/respondents a5acked Khem Singh and caused injuries to him. It is alleged that the assailants/respondents wanted to occupy her house forcibly. 4. On the afore-said complaint, FIR No.24 dated 23.04.2024 under Sec ons 454, 341, 323, 447, 506/34 IPC (Annexure P-2) was registered at Police Sta on Kheri Gandian, District Pa ala. 5. It is contended by the pe oner that despite commission of the serious offence vide FIR No.70 dated 04.09.2023 ibid, in which respondents Nos.2 to 4 were allowed an cipatory bail, they again opened brutal a5ack upon the complainant/pe oner in the revengeful manner and thus, respondents have misused the concession of bail. Pe oner is living in the village under serious threats, as accused are roaming freely threatening her to face the dire consequences, in case she does not withdraw the complaint. With these submissions, she prays for cancella on of the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4. Page 2 of 4 Sarita Rani 2025.01.31 14:21 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRM-M-22693-2024 2025:PHHC:014396 6. Despite service of respondent Nos.2 to 4, they failed to turn up, though at one point of me Mr. R.K. Jaswal, Advocate had appeared on their behalf. 7. Respondent No.1-State filed the status report and supported the version of the complainant/pe oner to the effect that fresh FIR No.24 dated 23.04.2024 has been registered against respondent Nos.2 to 4. It is also submi5ed that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were arrested in that case and were allowed regular bail on 29.04.2024 by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura; whereas the an cipatory bail of respondent No.2 was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pa ala on 05.06.2024. Final report under Sec on 173 Cr.P.C. has already been prepared. 8. This Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 directed the pe oner to place on record the copy of the MLR to show that she was assaulted in the subsequent event a0er grant of an cipatory bail by this Court to respondent Nos.2 to 4 vide order dated 15.02.2024. 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, MLR (Annexure A-1) was filed, which pertains to Khem Singh, revealing that 05 injuries were caused to him. However, it is conceded that no injury was caused to the pe oner- complainant in the subsequent event. 10. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have already been allowed regular bail by the Court in FIR No.24 dated 23.04.2024 ibid. Respondent No.2 has already joined in the inves ga on, as per latest status report. Complainant- pe oner has not sustained any injury in the alleged subsequent event. Respondents are close rela ves of the pe oner, in as much as respondents N: 2 & 3 are real nephews of the pe oner; whereas respondent N: 4 is the wife of respondent N: 2, as evident from contents of FIR Annexure P-2. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find the present case to be fit to cancel the an cipatory bail earlier granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 in case FIR No. 70 dated 04.09.2023 under Sec ons p. 3 Sarita Rani 2025.01.31 14:21 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRM-M-22693-2024 2025:PHHC:014396 454, 380, 427, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Sta on Kheri Gandian, District Pa ala. Dismissed. January 30, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No p. 4 Sarita Rani 2025.01.31 14:21 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order