JUDGMENT & ORDER : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. Heard. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 7.12.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri. Ganganagar whereby, the application filed by the respondent no. 2 smt. Neeru under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C was allowed and the regular bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 15.9.2017 by the learned Sessions Judge was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel Shri Shah submits that the petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 94/2017 on 13.9.2017 His bail application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. In the proceedings of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, an agreement was arrived at between the parties that the petitioner would keep the complainant with him. However, the agreement fell out later on. He urges that the learned Sessions Judge had granted regular bail to the petitioner and thus, there was no occasion for him to cancel the same & implored the Court to set aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Ojha urges that the petitioner misled the Sessions Court by making a false statement that he would be keeping the complainant with himself and thereby fraudulently procured the bail order. However, the petitioner did not abide by his promise and never took the complainant to the matrimonial home. 5. In reply to this contention, learned counsel Shri Shah urges that after being released from custody, the petitioner took the complainant with himself to his home. However, the complainant's relatives came at the petitioner's house and tried to assault him and thereafter, the complainant was taken back by her father. He further submits that proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C were initiated against Madanlal, Smt. Neeru and Pramod in the Court of A.D.M, Sri. Ganganagar on 11.10.2017 He thus opposes the submission advanced by Shri Ojha that the petitioner breached the conditions of bail and craves acceptance of the instant misc. petition. 6. Having heard the arguments advanced at Bar and having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances as emerging from record, it is apparent that the petitioner indeed took complainant to the matrimonial home after he was released on bail. However, the things did not move happily and some disputes arose between the spouses whereafter, the complainant left the matrimonial home. Having heard the arguments advanced at Bar and having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances as emerging from record, it is apparent that the petitioner indeed took complainant to the matrimonial home after he was released on bail. However, the things did not move happily and some disputes arose between the spouses whereafter, the complainant left the matrimonial home. Proceedings under Section 107/116(3) Cr.P.C were launched by the petitioner against the complainant & others in relation to this set of events. Thus, by no stretch of imagination can this Court be convinced that the petitioner breached the offer made on his behalf during the course of proceedings of bail application which was allowed on 15.9.2017 In this background, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in cancelling the regular bail granted to the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC which carry a maximum sentence of 3 years. 7. In view of the above discussion, the instant misc. petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order dated 7.12.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri. Ganganagar whereby, the application filed by the respondent no. 2 smt. Neeru under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C was allowed and the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled is quashed and set aside and the order dated 15.9.2017 is restored. 8. Stay petition also stands disposed of.