Crl. Misc. No.M-19433 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19433 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 14, 2010 Mahavir …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner submits that on April 8, 2010 when the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, the accused- respondents No.2 to 9 were not in custody as such they could not be granted the relief. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has observed in para 7 of the order that the said accused/ respondents had appeared before the Additional Crl. Misc. No.M-19433 of 2010 [2] District and Sessions Judge on March 26, 2010 and surrendered themselves before the said Court and they had moved an application for bail prior to April 5, 2010. The bail application of the respondents was maintainable under Section 439 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondents No.2 to 9 should have been in actual custody of the Court or in judicial custody under the orders of the Court when the regular bail was granted. It is claimed that on April 8, 2010, respondents No.2 to 9 were neither in custody nor their application could have been allowed. On the basis of the said illegality, the cancellation of bail granted to accused- respondents No.2 to 9 has been sought for. I have considered the contentions of counsel for the petitioner and the order dated April 8, 2010. The circumstances and merits of the private complaint in which respondents No.2 to 9 were involved, have been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Respondents No.2 to 9 were in deemed custody of the Sessions Judge w.e.f. March 26, 2010 when they had moved an application on April 5, 2010. They had protection of an interim order for one month w.e.f. March 6, 2010 till April 5, 2010. In view of above circumstances it is apparent that they being in deemed custody were entitled to file an application for bail. It will be too hyper-technical to hold that on April 8, 2010, their application which was filed while in deemed custody on April 5, 2010 would become not maintainable with the passage of time. No ground is made out for Crl. Misc. No.M-19433 of 2010 [3] interference under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail granted to respondents No.2 to 9. Dismissed. July 14, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE