JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J.:- The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 Lakhbir Singh vide order dated 21.2.2006, passed in Crl.M.No.69017-M of 2005. 2. It has been averred that respondent No.2 is threatening material witnesses not to depose against him. It has further been averred that on 28.11.2009, respondent No.2 and his son Kanwaljit Singh alongwith certain other persons used abusive language to Gurmukh Singh, who is the eye witness in the case and had also threatened him that in case he deposes against them, they would finish him. In this regard, FIR No.86 dated 19.12.2009, under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Ladhuwal, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-3. It has also been stated that another witness in the case, namely, Jagmohan Singh was going on his scooter with his three years old son and when he reached near the house of Charan Singh, then Kanwaljit Singh and Pardeep Singh, sons of respondent No.2 stopped his scooter and inflicted blows to Jagmohan Singh, witness. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has thus argued that as respondent No.2 is misusing the concession of anticipatory bail granted to him, therefore, the same be cancelled. 4. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 wherein all the allegations have been denied. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that after the grant of anticipatory bail, challan was presented and respondent No.2 was admitted to regular bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount. It is contended that as the orders passed in the anticipatory bail have been merged in the regular bail granted to respondent No.2, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. 5. It has further been submitted that in case FIR No.86 of 2009, respondent No.2 has been admitted to bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana vide order dated 2.4.2010. As the petitioner has not prayed for the cancellation of this bail order, therefore, there is no ground for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties for length. 7. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that although respondent No.2 was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure P-2), but thereafter challan was presented before the competent Court and respondent No.2 was admitted to regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties for length. 7. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that although respondent No.2 was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure P-2), but thereafter challan was presented before the competent Court and respondent No.2 was admitted to regular bail. The petitioner has not prayed for cancellation of the order vide which respondent No.2 was granted regular bail. 8. Apart from the above, a perusal of the order dated 2.4.2010, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana shows that the accused has been admitted to bail in case FIR No.86 of 2009. The petitioner has also not prayed for cancellation of bail in this case. 9. A perusal of FIR No.86 dated 19.12.2009, shows that the allegations against respondent No.2 are that he started abusing the father of the petitioner. A perusal of this FIR further shows that the allegations of inflicting injuries are against Pardeep Singh and Kanwaljit Singh. Thus, no overt act has been attributed to respondent No.2. 10. In view of the aforementioned discussion, there is no ground to cancel anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order Annexure P-2 and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. —————