IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 34713 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.12.2010 Hansraj ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.RP Rana,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Hansraj under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in a complaint case No.552 dated 19.5.2007 under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rewari. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 26.11.2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.61716 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M 34713 2010 Contends that regarding the same occurrence FIR No.75 dated 17.5.2007 was lodged by the petitioner against the complainant party and that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant as a counter-blast to the same. Further CRM No.M 34713 of 2010 -2- contends that as per MLR, only one superficial injury has been shown on the index finger of the complainant. Further contends that petitioner is ready to appear before the learned Magistrate and face trial. Notice of motion for 14.12.2010. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to appear before learned trial court within two weeks from today and if he so appears and applies for regular bail, he be admitted to interim bail by learned trial court subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by it.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail by learned trial Court on 4.12.2010. Copy of the order dated 4.12.2010 has also been placed on record. It is further contended that he will continue to appear before learned trial Court on each and every date. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed these facts. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail petition filed on behalf of petitioner Hansaraj is accepted and order dated 26.11.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court. December 14, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE