CRM-M-28288-2011 [ 1 ] ::::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28288-2011 Date of decision:07.11.2011 Bablu Singh @ Sandeep ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rahul Rahore, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This is a petition for grant of bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.384 dated 02.05.2011, under Sections 148, 149, 364, 452, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Karnal, District Karnal. The allegations contained in the FIR are that Sonia got married to one Sukhwinder Singh Pall on 28.07.2010. During the subsistence of first marriage, Sonia got married to Tej Bhan @ Sumit on 27.09.2010, whereas Sukhwinder Singh Pall left for U.K. Thereafter, both Sonia and Tej Bhan filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against Raju Singh, Kamlesh wife of Raju Singh, Ashraf, Raju @ Raji and Subhash Chand for seeking protection of their lives and liberty threatened by them, though the petitioner was not a party therein. The learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide her order dated 29.09.2010, granted police protection to Sonia and her husband Tej Bhan, who later on filed an application in the said petition that the matter has been compromised and there is no danger to their lives from respondent Nos.4 to 8 in that petition. Accordingly, the said petition was dismissed on 03.02.2011. It is submitted that then Dhanno Devi, mother of Tej Bhan registered the present FIR alleging that her daughter-in-law Sonia was abducted by some person but she did not name the petitioner. CRM-M-28288-2011 [ 2 ] ::::::::: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor was apprehended at the spot and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application but could not deny that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Mohinder Singh, has already been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2011 passed in CRM-M-17940-2011. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, but without making any observation on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. November 07, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge