CRM-M-21649-2011 CRM-M-23946-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-21649-2011 Date of Decision:04.10.2011 Sanjeev Jain ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent (2) CRM-M-23946-2011 Date of Decision:04.10.2011 Diwakar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-21649-2011. Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-23946-2011. Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing CRM-M-21649-2011 titled as `Sanjeev Jain Vs. State of Haryana’ [for short “first petition”] and CRM-M-23946-2011 titled as `Diwakar Vs. State of Haryana’ [for short “second petition”] as both the petitions have arisen from FIR No.137 dated 22.04.2011, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 482, 483 IPC, Sections 7, 10, 55 of EC Act, Sections 63, 14, 57, of the Copyright Act and Sections 103, 104, 47, 99 of the Trademark Act at Police Station Sadar Gurgaon. The petitioner(s) have prayed for regular bail in both the cases. The allegations contained in the FIR are that on secret information, raid was conducted in which one Ajay, who was carrying 1 CRM-M-21649-2011 CRM-M-23946-2011 spurious food commodities from Delhi to Gurgaon, was apprehended. On the disclosure statement of Ajay, one Mukesh was further arrested and on his disclosure statement, the petitioner in the first petition, namely, Sanjeev Jain was arrested. The petitioner in the second petition, namely, Diwakar, is allegedly the servant of aforesaid Mukesh. In the first petition, it is submitted that the petitioner is a Kiryana Merchant at Prem Nagar, New Delhi who has no connection with the godown from where the spurious food commodities have been recovered. He also submits that he is neither the owner of that godown nor the said godown is on rent with him. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2011, whereas the challan has already been presented in this case. The petitioner in the second petition is allegedly the servant of aforesaid Mukesh. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner in the first petition is neither owner of the godown nor there is any legal document to show any relationship of the petitioner with the owner of that godown. He further submits that the godown might be on the oral tenancy with the petitioner. In respect of the second petition, he submits that the petitioner in that petition is allegedly the servant of Mukesh. At the same time, it is also submitted that he is also in custody from 24.04.2011. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, but without making any observation on the merits, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trail Court. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. October 04, 2011. ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge 2