Crl.M.No.M-16628 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-16628 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 22, 2010 Daljit Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kartar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Additional A.G., Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.22, dated 19.2.2010, registered under Sections 448, 342, 380 IPC, at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is old person of 75 years of age and petitioner no.2 is son of petitioner no.1, whose marriage was to be solmenised on 20.2.2010, i.e., just after two days of this incident. Further contends that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case only on account of the fact that petitioner no.1 is owner of the canter. However, it is contended that the canter was taken by the driver of petitioner no.1 and thereafter he misused the same for committing the theft of the buffaloes. Further contends that he has already been arrested and some of the buffaloes have already been recovered from his possession and the canter has also been taken into possession by the police. Hence, it is contended that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case just on the statement of co-accused, i.e., driver of petitioner no.1. Crl.M.No.M-16628 of 2010 (O&M) -2- A coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 31.5.2010, passed the following order: “ Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.1 is a man of ripe age of 75 years and he has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of being the owner of the vehicle. He further contends that the petitioners are not named in the FIR. Notice of motion for 6.7.2010. Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioners is stayed with a direction to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioners will be admitted to interim bail by the Investigating Officer. The petitioners will abide by the conditions as enshrined in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.” It has been stated by learned State counsel that the main accused i.e., driver of petitioner no.1, has already been arrested and that buffaloes belonging to present complainant have already been recovered and the canter has also been recovered. However, bail application has been opposed only on the plea that co-accused has not got recovered some other buffaloes belonging to some other persons. 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. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 31.5.2010, granting interim bail to petitioners-Daljit Singh and Babu @ Balwinder Singh, is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 22.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge