Criminal Misc. No.M-25498 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-25498 of 2009 Date of decision : 29.10.2009 Yashpal Khanna .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Patter, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. N.P.S.Kohli, Advocate for respondent no.2. S. D. ANAND, J. The Apex Court, while disposing of a controversy about the bail plea of the respondent no.2-Vijay Aggarwal alias Machy, dismissed his SLP with the following orders:- “Heard counsel for the petitioner. No case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, we wish to reiterate that inherent in the power to grant bail is the power in the Court to grant interim bail, pending final disposal of the bail application. This is in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right of reputation to every person. Hence, the petitioner may apply for regular bail along with an application for interim bail application. If such application is filed, the trial court si directed to decide the interim bail application, pending final disposal of the bail application, on the same day on which it is filed and on its own merits in accordance with law. We make it clear that this shall not be taken as an expression of opinion as if we are inclined or not Criminal Misc. No.M-25498 of 2009 -2- **** inclined to release the petitioner on bail.” The learned Trial Judge, while adjourning the matter on 31.8.2009 for reply and arguments on the application for regular bail, ordered the release of respondent no.2 on interim bail in the sum of RS.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. At the time of motion hearing, in a challenge thereto, an averment was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite Apex Court having clarified that the Trial Court shall dispose of the bail application on merit and it shall not be influenced by the order passed by (Apex Court), learned Trial Judge had proceeded on the premise as if interim bail had been ordered by the Apex Court to be granted in any case. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Trial Judge recorded self contained reasons while ordering the release of respondent no.2 on interim bail. It noticed that the custody of respondent no.2 was not required as his co-accused had already been released on regular bail by the Court of Sessions; and that the main accused having been found to be innocent, his name had been taken off the array of the accused. The impugned order does not, at all, indicate that the Trial Court was, in any manner, influenced by order of the Apex Court. In the light thereof, the plea for cancellation of interim bail granted to respondent no.2 is without any force. Dismissed. October 29, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No Criminal Misc. No.M-25498 of 2009 -3- ****