CRM No.M-29101 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-29101 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.09.2011 Mewa Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr.J.S. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. challenging the orders dated 03.11.2010 (Annexure P-2) and 21.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa and order dated 25.07.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Learned counsel has argued that when anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent No.2-Manjit Singh, it was observed that the anticipatory bail would be effective for a further period of 15 days after the presentation of the challan before the Illaqa Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to grant regular bail since the offence attracted a maximum imprisonment of life. The revision petition was rejected by the learned revisional Court holding that since anticipatory bail had CRM No.M-29101 of 2011 ::2:: been granted to the respondent, no useful purpose would be served by now sending him behind bars. Apart from the reasons which have weighed with the learned revisional Court, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 126, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that normally an order of anticipatory bail would ordinarily hold good till the trial of the case is concluded. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to take a different opinion from that taken by the revisional Court. Dismissed. September 23, 2011 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE