IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-18362 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 10, 2010. Sudhir Maan ...... Petitioner Versus. State of Haryana ..... Respondent Present:- Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurvinder Sandhu, AAG Haryana. S.S. SARON, J.. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 27.01.2009 for the offences under Sections 216, 120-B IPC and also under Section 395 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-14, Panchkula. Learned counsel for the petitioner however states that there is no charge against the petitioner for an offence under Section 395 IPC and, therefore, he prays for bail in respect of offences under Sections 216 and 120-B IPC only. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panchkula on 01.08.2009 and he was admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioner, however, did not appear in the Court on 26.05.2010. According to the petitioner, he had noted the date as 27.05.2010 instead of 26.05.2010. In any case, the petitioner appeared in the Court on 27.05.2010 and he surrendered before the Court and prayed for bail, which was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, on 02.06.2010. It is Crl. Misc. No. M-18362 of 2010 [2] submitted that the offences for which the petitioner has been charged are bailable. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, shall be admitted to bail. The petition stands disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 10, 2010. sjks.