CRM No. M-28616 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-28616 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2009 Mahabir and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case, wherein petitioners have been summoned to face trial pursuant to complaint bearing No.110 dated 18th March, 2005 titled “Kanta Devi Vs. Mahabir & others”, which is pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on the same allegations, as levelled in the instant complaint, an FIR was earlier registered against the petitioners. However, they were found innocent in the same and cancellation report submitted by the police was accepted. Thereafter, on a private complaint, preferred by the complainant, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial by the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. According to the counsel, it CRM No. M-28616 of 2009 2 being a complaint case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and thus, they deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. He further contends that pursuant to the order dated October 13, 2009, the petitioners have surrendered before the trial court and furnished the bail bonds. He has also placed on record certified copy of the order dated 31st October, 2009, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon in this regard. The prayer for pre-arrest bail has, however, been opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the ground that allegations against the petitioners are serious. According to him, the cancellation report submitted by the police in the FIR, earlier registered, was without proper investigation. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that pursuant to the order dated October 13, 2009, the petitioners have already surrendered before the trial court and furnished the bail bonds, the interim order dated October 13, 2009 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 17, 2009 'rajpal'