Crl.M.No.M-14033 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-14033 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: June 29, 2010 Sheela and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Gurdev Singh, Advocate for Mr.Anil Kumar Lambdharia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.115, dated 2.5.2010, registered under Sections 363, 366A, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 27.5.2010, passed the following order: “ Argues that Sahender Singh son of Raghbir Singh, brother of petitioner No.1-Sheela had married with daughter of complainant, Sham Lal with her free consent and that both are major and are living together. Further argues that earlier a joint petition for protection of life and liberty was filed by daughter of complainant and brother of petitioner no.1, in which order, Annexure P5, was passed by this Court. It is further contended that date of birth of daughter of complainant, as per certificate issued by Principal, Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Kharkhoda, Sonepat, Annexure P2, is 6.10.1989. Notice of motion for 29.6.2010. Crl.M.No.M-14033 of 2010 (O&M) -2- However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners 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 27.5.2010, granting interim bail to petitioners-Sheela, Sunita @ Mamta, Pushpa, Kamlesh, Rajesh and Sunny is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 29.6.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge