IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No. M- 10275 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2010. Om Parkash Namberdar ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M- 10482 of 2010(O&M) Tej Pal Lamberdar ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s) 3. Crl. Misc. No. M- 10711 of 2010(O&M) Rishi Pal ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate and Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana. ***** CRM No.M-10275 of 2010 RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) All the aforementioned petitions have been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.83 dated 20.03.2010, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Safidon, District Jind. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 07.04.2010 in Crl. Misc. No.M-10275 of 2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.18444 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.10275 of 2010 Argues that petitioner is only a Namberdar and is not beneficiary, in any way, and that allegations are that thumb impressions of allottees were forged by the Chowkidar on the asking of Shyam Singh Patwari and in the house of land-owner Bunni Singh and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case after five years of the alleged occurrence. It is also contended that on the same allegations, complaint, Annexure P1, is also pending, in which petitioner is also one of the accused. Notice of motion for 14.5.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” This Court while issuing notice of motion on 09.04.2010 in Crl. Misc. No.M-10482 of 2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.18847 of 2010 2 CRM No.M-10275 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.10482 of 2010 Argues that petitioner is only a Lamberdar and is not beneficiary, in any way, and that the allegations are that thumb impressions of allottees were forged by the Chowkidar on the asking of Shyam Singh Patwari and in the house of land-owner Bunni Singh and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case after five years of the alleged occurrence. It is also contended that on the same allegations, complaint, Annexure P1, is also pending, in which petitioner is also one of the accused. It is further contended that on the same allegations co-accused – Om Parkash Namberdar has been granted interim bail by this Court. Notice of motion for 14.5.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. To be heard alongwith Crl.M.No.M-10275 of 2010” This Court while issuing notice of motion on 09.04.2010 in Crl. Misc. No.M-10711 of 2010 passed the following order:- “Argues that petitioner is only a Panch and is not beneficiary, in any way, and that allegations are that thumb impressions of allottees were forged by the Chowkidar on the asking of Shyam Singh Patwari and in the house of land-owner Bunni Singh and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case after five years of the alleged occurrence. It is also contended that on the same allegations, complaint, Annexure P1, is also pending, in which petitioner is also one of the accused. Notice of motion for 14.5.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by 3 CRM No.M-10275 of 2010 the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have already joined the investigation pursuant to said orders dated 07.04.2010 and 09.04.2010. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from SI.Om Parkash, that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of Om Parkash Namberdar, Tej Pal Lamberdar and Rishi Pal, are accepted and orders dated 07.04.2010 and 09.04.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners are, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 27, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4