IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12495 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : July 30, 2009 Jagga Ram ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana for respondent no. 1 Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 to 4 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 37222 of 2009 The application is allowed and reply on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 is taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. M-12495 of 2009 Jagga Ram has filed this petition for cancellation of regular bail granted to accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide order dated 7.4.2009, Annexure P/11, in criminal complaint No. RBT-573 of 2007 instituted by the petitioner under sections 406, 420, 344, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 have been summoned as accused in the said case under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC only. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide order dated Criminal Misc. No. M-12495 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 17.3.2009 had granted anticipatory bail to respondent nos. 2 to 4 for limited period from 17.3.2009 to 31.3.2009. During the said period, respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed application for regular bail before the trial Magistrate but the said application was dismissed. Thereafter respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed petition for regular bail before Additional Sessions Judge who vide order dated 7.4.2009 i.e. after the expiry of the period of anticipatory bail, granted bail to respondent nos. 2 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent nos. 2 to 4 were neither in custody nor present in the court when order dated 7.4.2009, Annexure P/11 granting them regular bail was passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and therefore, no order for regular bail could be passed. There is considerable force in the contention. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is unable to counter the aforesaid contention. Factual position is not in dispute. Order of anticipatory bail Annexure P/9 remained operative till 31.3.2009. However, impugned bail order granting regular bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was passed thereafter on 7.4.2009. At that time, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were neither in custody nor present in the Court. Consequently, no order of regular bail of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 could be passed. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.4.2009, Annexure P/11 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal granting regular bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is set aside. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 30, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'