Crl.M.No.M-34886 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-34886 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 9, 2010 Rajinder Singh and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.265, dated 24.10.2009, registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, at Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana, initially on behalf of all the petitioners, namely, Rajinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Ram Singh and Ajmer Singh. However, lateron counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition on behalf of petitioner nos.3 to 5. Hence, petition filed on behalf of petitioner nos.3 to 5 was dismissed as withdrawn. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner nos.1 and 2-Rajinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh, on 10.12.2009 passed the following order: “ Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners No.3 to 5 shall surrender before the concerned court and move an application for regular bail and the present Crl.M.No.M-34886 of 2009 (O&M) -2- petition may be dismissed as withdrawn on their behalf. Ordered accordingly. If petitioners No.3 to 5 surrender and move an application for regular bail, it shall be appreciated that the concerned court shall dispose it of expeditiously preferably within 3-4 days but on merits after due notice to the State counsel. However, so far as petitioners No.1 and 2 are concerned, issue notice to A.G. Punjab for 23.2.2010. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, petitioners No.1 and 2 shall be admitted to ad-interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of arresting/investigating officer. They shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” It has been stated by learned counsel for petitioner no.1 and 2 that pursuant to the said order, petitioner nos.1 and 2 have already joined the investigation. It has also been stated by learned State counsel as well, on instructions from Jagjit Singh, HC, that petitioner nos.1 and 2 have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that petitioner nos.3 to 5 have not yet surrendered. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 10.12.2009, granting interim bail to petitioner nos.1 and 2, namely, Rajinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh, is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 9.4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M-34886 of 2009 (O&M) -3-