Criminal Misc. No. M-26924 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26924 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: October 24,2009 Shubh Lata and others .. Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate for the complainant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petitionis for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 57 dated 28.4.2005, filed by respondent No. 2, under Sections 379, 380, 386, 329, 494, 495, 304, 120-B IPC. In the aforesaid complaint, the petitioners were summoned to face trial vide order dated 11.7.2008. After service, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court for grant of pre-arrest bail, which was granted on 20.3.2009 and the petitioners were given liberty to furnish bail bonds on or before the next date of hearing. On 22.4.2009, it was stated in the court that four of the petitioners filed application for bail along with bail bonds. However, thereafter, they did not appear. On the next date of hearing,i.e., 10.8.2009, non-bailable warrants were issued. It is at this stage that the petitioners approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners are government servants. The filing of complaint against the petitioners was a counter blast to the complaint filed by petitioner No. 1 against the father of respondent No. 2-complainant under Section 406/498-A IPC. It was second marriage of petitioner No. 1 with father of respondent No. 2. In fact, the error in furnishing the bail bonds occurred on the date on account of the fact that compromise talks were going on between the parties. Otherwise, the effort of the petitioners, who are government servants, was not to abstain from the court or to avoid the proceedings. Criminal Misc. No. M-26924 of 2009 [2] On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that considering the conduct of the petitioners, they do not deserve the concession of bail. A perusal of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners clearly shows under what terms, the petitioners had been granted bail. They having failed to comply with the conditions should not be heard at this stage. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. No doubt, there is default on the part of the petitioners in not furnishing the bail bonds before the court below in terms of the order passed by the learned Sessions Court. However, considering the fact that the complaint was filed way back on 28.4.2005 and there cannot be any likelihood of the petitioners absconding considering their stand that they are government servants and there is no apprehension of the parties fighting again as they are residing at different places, I consider this to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners will appear before the court below on 26.10.2009 and furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Amritsar. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge October 24,2009 mk