JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.: - The petitioner seeks cancellation of order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon granting the concession of pre-arrest bail to respondents 1 to 3. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was married to Abhishek Solanki. Respondent No.1 happens to the mother-in-law, respondent No.2 is father-in-law whereas respondent No.3 is sister-in-law of the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband has not been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail even by this court. It has further been argued that the dowry articles are yet to be recovered. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon has wrongly observed that recovery of dowry articles has already been effected. It is claimed by counsel for the petitioner that the dowry articles are still in possession of respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 placed reliance on Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anr., [2014(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2289 (SC) : 2014(3) Law Herald (SC) 1793] : 2014(4) RAJ 187, to contend that respondents 1 to 3 could not have been arrested in the present case. I have considered the contentions of counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and counsel for respondents 1 to 3. No doubt this court is not to consider the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon as an appellate authority but when a fact, which is apparently contrary to the record, has been noticed while granting pre-arrest bail, the circumstances warrant interference in the order of bail granted to respondents 1 to 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. It has been specifically averred in the reply, filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police City, Gurgaon that during the course of investigation, no recovery of dowry articles was made from the respondents 1 to 3 and now the challan against them has been submitted in the court of Ld. Illaqa Magistrate, Gurgaon on 2.9.2014 and the trial is pending in the court of Ms. Poonam Kanwar, JMIC, gurgaon and is fixed for 20.11.2014. 4. Illaqa Magistrate, Gurgaon on 2.9.2014 and the trial is pending in the court of Ms. Poonam Kanwar, JMIC, gurgaon and is fixed for 20.11.2014. 4. I have considered the contention of counsel for respondents 1 to 3 in context to judgment of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra) wherein emphasis has been laid on the amended provisions of Section 41(1)(b)(ii)(a)(b)(c)(d) and (e) Cr.P.C. A perusal of the judgment indicates that there is no absolute bar imposed for arresting an accused in cognizable cases, in which punishment for a term less than 3 years is provided. The said judgment casts a duty upon the police officer to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest directing that the arrest should be effected by the police officer after satisfying the requirement of Section 41 Cr.P.C. The police officer has to record his satisfaction that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes as envisaged by Sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Clause 1(b)(ii) of Section 41 Cr.P.C. 5. Reply filed by the police authorities clearly indicates that the arrest of respondents 1 to 3 is required for the purpose of effecting recoveries. The recovery is an important part of the investigation as envisaged in Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Unless until the recoveries are effected in accordance with the law during the course of investigation, prejudice would be caused to the prosecution agency as well as to the complainant although the purpose of criminal proceedings is not to help the recovery of any articles. The husband of the petitioner has not yet been arrested. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon has observed that recoveries have already been effected. The said observation will not only cause prejudice to the prosecution agency but the said observation is also likely to be used by the husband of the petitioner to seek the concession of bail u/s 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that since a specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant- petitioner that all the dowry articles are in possession of respondent No.1, I partly allow the petition u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. and order the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.1 Kusum Lata Solanki mother-in-law. 7. So far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to cancel the order of pre-arrest bail qua them. 7. So far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to cancel the order of pre-arrest bail qua them. The petition qua respondents 2 and 3 is dismissed. It will be open to the investigating agency to arrest respondent No.1 and effect recoveries. Any steps taken after arrest of respondent No.1 will be deemed to be the steps taken during the course of investigation as per the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————