Crl. Misc. No. 17043 of 2008 in Crl. Misc. No. M-7824 of 2008 -.- Present : Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Kumar Nabhewala, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. Ms. Mamta Singal Talwar, AAG, Haryana. Learned counsel for the applicant - petitioner submits that the present application for interim bail has been rendered infructuous and the same is accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL MISC. NO. M-9655 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 15.04.2008 Harnarinder Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. The charges against the petitioner in the present case are under Sections 7, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The other co-accused in the same FIR were arrested and released on regular bail by the Court. Under these circumstances and taking into consideration the nature of offence, I do not find any ground for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-9657 of 2008 -.- Present: Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit filed by the petitioners in 1994 was decreed on January 05, 1995. The defendants in the suit were complainant Ranbir Kaur along with two other sisters Ms.Parkash Kaur and Ms.Rajwinder Kaur. The complainant had appeared in the suit and admitted the claim of the petitioners. The present FIR was got registered nearly 13 years after the passing of the decree. In the investigation by the police, two sisters who were defendants, had appeared in person in the Court and got their statements recorded before the police about this fact. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that infact they were identified by the Municipal Commissioner. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 19.05.2008. Meanwhile, in case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/ Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called upon for investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-9658 of 2008 -.- Present: Mr. H. P. S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute with the complainant had infact been compromised and the compromise is attached as Annexure P-2. On the basis of compromise, along with the petition for anticipatory bail, a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR was also filed, which had been returned with some objections. Notice of motion for 14.05.2008. Meanwhile, in case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/ Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called upon for investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-9659 of 2008 -.- Present : Mr. R. S. Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute of the petitioners with the complainant has already been settled and on the basis thereof, they have already filed a petition for quashing of FIR bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-3303 of 2008 in which notice of motion has been issued and the same is pending for 22.04.2008. In the application for pre-arrest bail filed before the Court below, notice to State has been issued for 23.04.2008. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of stay of arrest during the pendency of petition before the Trial Court, keeping in view the fact that the matter in dispute has already been compromised. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 22.04.2008. Meanwhile, in case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/ Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called upon for investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To be heard along with Criminal Misc. No. M- 3303 of 2008. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE Criminal Writ Petition No. 375 of 2008 -.- Present: Mr. H. S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 4 only, at this stage, for 05.05.2008. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-9660 of 2008 -.- Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the FIR, there are no specific allegations with regard to the petitioners' carrying the weapon. The petitioners were arrested initially and were released on regular bail by the Trial Court on February 09, 2008. The injury with sharp edged weapon on the left elbow of the complainant, which was later on found to be grevious and on the basis of which Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was attracted, is attributed to the petitioners. Prayer for pre-arrest bail is after addition of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR. The injury with sharp edged weapon is attributed to Sandeep. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana for 19.05.2008. Meanwhile, in case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/ Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called upon for investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-9661 of 2008 -.- Present: Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR, false allegations were levelled and the contents of FIR are totally vague. Entire family, of which the petitioner is a part, was implicated. Six of the co-accused were arrested, they have already been released on regular bail by the Trial Court. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana for 19.05.2008. Meanwhile, in case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/ Investigating Officer. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called upon for investigation. She shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M – 9662 of 2008 -.- Present: Mr. M. S. Dhami, Advocate, for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant was living with her mother for the last three years. Son of the petitioner is husband of the complainant. Infact, the FIR was registered only for the reason that the son had not been able to take the complainant to Italy. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 01.05.2008. Meanwhile, in case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/ Investigating Officer. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called upon for investigation. She shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-9656 of 2008 -.- Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in FIR No. 118 dated 19.06.2005, the petitioners were arrested and were released on bail. At the time of presentation of challan, petitioners were shown in column no.2. Thereafter, the complainant filed application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the petitioners as additional accused. However, the same was rejected by the Trial Court. In revision before this Court, order rejecting the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was found to be valid and the complainant was given liberty to file fresh application in case sufficient material comes on record, justifying the summoning order against the petitioners. Thereafter, the complainant (in the FIR) filed criminal complaint no. 14 of 2006 against the petitioners along with one Jarnail Singh s/o Mehnga Singh under Sections 302/324/148/149/452 of the Indian Penal Code. Application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and order passed by this Court was not disclosed. Petitioners were summoned in the complaint. Thereafter, in a petition filed for quashing of the complaint, this Court vide order dated 10.05.2007 permitted the petitioners to furnish their bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Court, where the complaint was filed. The same was Crl. Misc. No. M-9656 of 2008 -2- furnished. However, on non appearance on 05.11.2007, the bail bonds were cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that non appearance on the date fixed was for the reason that they had been accused in FIR registered against the petitioners under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and they are apprehending their arrest there. However, the petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail in FIR under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated December 21, 2007. Notice of motion for 15.05.2008. In the meantime, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Court below upto 19.04.2008 and furnish their fresh bail bonds. APRIL 15, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) shalini JUDGE