IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-34688 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.12.2011 Rajbir Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) CRM No.65644 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-34688 of 2011 This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.200 dated 10.9.2011 under Sections 148, 149, 323 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar. The allegation against the petitioner is that he and Dayanand caught hold of Pawan and Sombir and Raj Kumar gave injuries to Pawan with their knives. By way of separate application i.e. CRM No.65644 of 2011 the MLRs of the accused and injured Pawan are placed on record. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself had suffered injury in the alleged occurrence meaning thereby, the presence of the petitioner is not ruled out at the time of the alleged occurrence and once his participation has been specifically mentioned, may be of catching hold of Pawan to whom injury with knife was given, I do not find that the petitioner deserves concession of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 01, 2011 JUDGE Vivek CRM No.65410 of 2011 in CRA-S-3082-SB-2011 Present: Mr.G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Jain, Additional A.G. Haryana. ***** This is an application filed by the appellant under Section 389 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim bail for two days to attend the marriage of his niece (Bhanji) and to perform the ritual of ‘Bhaat’ ‘ceremony etc. being the only maternal uncle (Mama). Notice of this application was issued. Learned counsel for the State was directed to verify about the factum of the marriage and also whether the applicant is the only person who has to perform the Bhaat ceremony. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that as per their verification the marriage is fixed for 3.12.2011, and the applicant is the only person who has to perform the ‘Bhaat’ ceremony. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he may be allowed to attend the marriage for two days in the police custody for which he is ready to bear all the expenses. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is granted two days interim bail w.e.f 3rd December to 4th December to attend the marriage of his niece in Police custody and District Jail Superintendent Sirsa, is directed that accused-convict shall be lodged in jail from where he is to be taken, in the morning of the 5th December 2011. All the expenses shall be borne by the applicant. Copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Bench Secretary. Application stands disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 02 2011 JUDGE CRM-M-28628-2011 (O&M) Present:-Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr,Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana ***** Summoned record has been received. To come up for arguments on 9.12.2011 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 02 2011 JUDGE Aarti C.M. No.13076-C-II of 2011 in RSA No.549 of 2010 Present:-Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the appellants. C.M. No.13076-C-II of 2011 Application has become infructuous as the case has already been listed. RSA No.549 of 2010 Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time to argue the matter. Adjourned to 19.1.2012. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 02 2011 JUDGE Aarti RSA No.915 of 2010 Present:-Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate for Mr,Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the matter. Adjourned to 31.1.2012. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 02 2011 JUDGE Aarti RSA No.668 of 2010 Present:-Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the appellants. ***** Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the matter. Adjourned to 30.1.2012. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 02 2011 JUDGE Aarti CM-8050-51-CII of 2011 in FAO-301 of 2010 Present:-Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. ****** CM-8050-51-CII of 2011. Vide order dated 4th August, 2010, this Court has directed to the Chairman of the Punjab State Power Corporation to conduct an enquiry and to fix responsibility for not watching the interest of the Corporation in suffering an ex parte award in favour of the Contractor to the extent of about Rs. 67 lacs and then deliberately not filing objection under Section 34 of the Act, and appeal before this Court under Section 37 of the Act, in time. Six months time was given for completion of the enquiry. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the enquiry against three officers were conducted. The enquiry against one of the officer is complete but the enquiry against the two officers is still pending. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a prayer for extension of some time to complete an enquiry and to place on record the action taken report. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case this application is hereby allowed and four months time is granted to complete the enquiry in respect of the officers remained, and to place on record the action taken report. CM stands disposed of. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 02 2011 JUDGE Aarti