CRM-M No. 15181 of 2011 **** Manoj alias Monu and another vs. State of Haryana and another Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the complainant. **** On 25.5.2011 the following order was passed:- “ This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in compliant case bearing No. 568/1 of 2009 titled as Virender Singh v. Dinesh and others, instituted under Sections 307, 302, 34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, now pending for 13.06.2011 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. On the last date the following contention was noticed:- “Learned counsel has argued that in respect of the same complaint an FIR was lodged and after three inquiries (instituted at the instance of the complainants themselves)the petitioners were found to be not present at the spot and, therefore, were not mentioned as accused persons or even in column No.2.” Mr. Ashwani Gaur appearing on behalf of the complainant has argued that the only reason on the basis of which the petitioners were found innocent was that their phone records revealed them to be in Delhi. However, the murder took place in the village which is very close to Delhi and, therefore, the fact that their phone records reveal that they were in Delhi cannot be a ground to exculpate them because the allegation against them was they drove the main accused to the place of incident and after the main accused shot dead the deceased, they helped him to escapee towards Delhi. CRM-M No. 15181 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that apart from the other details the police had also recorded the statements of some eye witnesses who had corroborated the fact of the absence of the petitioners. Learned DAG states that the investigating officer has not come present and that she needs a short adjournment to ascertain the phone records to see if this argument of learned counsel for the complainant holds any water. Adjourned to 27.05.2011.” Today learned counsel has stated that as regards accused Rambir, his call records reveal that at the time in question his phone was being used in Bahadurgarh. In the circumstances his presence at the spot is rendered doubtful. At this stage learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned DAG, on instructions from Inspector Rattan Singh, are not able to dispute this. Apart from this it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners are not the assailants. In this view of the matter I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. They shall appear before the learned trial Court and furnish their bail bonds there and the learned trial Court shall release them on bail to its satisfaction. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE May 27, 2011 sunita