CRM No. M 12389 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 12389 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.10.2010 Mukand Singh Gill and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. B S Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. S P S Sidhu, Advocate for the applicant/respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) CRM No. 51919 of 2010 This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for impleading applicant – Jagdeep Kaur wife of Balkaranjit Singh, resident of Langeana presently residing at Calgary, Alberta, Canada as respondent No. 2. Notice in the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection if the applicant is impleaded as respondent No. 2. CRM No. M 12389 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Accordingly, the application is allowed and applicant-Jagdeep Kaur is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 2. Main case Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed reply by way of affidavit of Jagdeep Kaur in Court today. The same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 stated that at the time of passing of order dated 28.07.2010, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that it was only Mukand Singh Gill-petitioner No. 1 who had appeared before the trial Court and not the other petitioners. This Court was under the impression that all the petitioners herein had put in appearance and filed application for regular bail. Accordingly, the order dated 28.07.2010 was passed by this Court directing the trial court to release the petitioners on bail subject to their putting appearance before the concerned Court on the said date. In view of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioners at the first instance has withdrawn the petitions qua all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1. Dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioners No. 2 to 5. Without making any further observation and also taking into account that petitioner No. 1 who is father in law has been enlarged on bail, the order dated 28.07.2010 is made absolute qua petitioner No. 1 only. Even though, the petition qua petitioners No. 2 to 5 is withdrawn, it is clarified that the interim relief granted to all other petitioners stands withdrawn and the proceedings before the trial Court qua them shall continue. CRM No. M 12389 of 2010 (O&M) 3 However, it is made clear that the bail, if at all, granted to Petitioner No. 1 is subject to the condition that he shall continue to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 11, 2010 mohan