Crl.M.No.M-36900 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-36900 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 5, 2011 Mahesh Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Indresh Goel, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.179, dated 5.7.2002, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 16.12.2010, passed the following order: “Crl.M.No.65538 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-36900 of 2010 Contends that FIR pertains to the year 2002 and petitioner was appearing before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and however, he could not appear on 20.10.2010 due to illness and his presence was exempted by learned trial Court on an application moved on his behalf. Further contends that however, petitioner also could not appear on 30.10.2010 as he had not yet recovered and his counsel did not inform the Court and hence his bail was cancelled. In Crl.M.No.M-36900 of 2010 (O&M) -2- support of his contention, he has also placed on record medical certificate issued by a qualified Medical Officer, in this regard. Notice of motion for 5.1.2011. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to appear before learned trial Court within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail and if he so appears and applies for regular bail, learned trial Court is directed to release him on interim bail subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by it.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already appeared before learned trial Court and admitted to interim bail vide order dated 17.12.2010. He has also produced certified copy of order passed by learned trial Court, which is taken on record. These facts have not been disputed by learned State counsel. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is 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 16.12.2010, granting interim bail to petitioner-Mahesh Kumar, is, hereby made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 5.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge