IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No. M- 12666 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2010. M.L.Gupta ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus U.T. Chandigarh. ...... RESPONDENT(s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M- 12031 of 2010(O&M) Kulwant Singh Dhillon ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus U.T. Chandigarh. ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. R.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.M.No.M-12666 of 2010 Capt. Narinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.M.No.M-12031 of 2010 Mr. G.S.Chahal, APP for U.T. Chandigarh. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CRM No.M-12666 of 2010 Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No.152 dated 01.07.2009, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner – M.L.Gupta that he is 80 years old practising lawyer and he has only identified the seller and that he identified the seller on the basis of the documents available on the file of Estate Office. It is further contended that photographs affixed on sale deed was of the same person whose photograph was on affidavit. It is further contended that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 10.04.2010 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as even investigation has not been completed. It is further contended that case is triable by Magistrate and hence, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner – Kulwant Singh Dhillon that he has been continuing in custody since 14.03.2010. It is further contended that he has not been named in the FIR and that he is also not a Vendee and only allegation against him is that he is friend of Vendee. Bail applications have been opposed by learned counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh on the plea that co-accused is yet to be arrested and that the petitioners have conspired to commit the offence. 2 CRM No.M-12666 of 2010 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. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of M.L.Gupta and Kulwant Singh Dhillon is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 27, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3