IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 31572 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 26, 2010. Nirmala and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.215 dated 11.09.2010, under Sections 332/353/186/506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 27.10.2010 passed the following order:- CRM No.M-31572 of 2010 “Crl.M.No.56219 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-31572 of 2010 Contends that petitioners are ladies and that they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of ASI Jai Singh. Further contends that in fact ASI Jai Singh has misbehaved with petitioners and a complaint in this regard was also made to Director General of Police, Panchkula, Haryana, Annexure P1. Further contends that husband of petitioner no.1 has already been arrested in this case and released on regular bail. Further contends that in fact, husband of petitioner no.1, namely, Ramesh Chander, was given injuries by Jagdish and others and that complaint against Jagdish was made by husband of petitioner no.1 to the police and however instead of taking any action against them, petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Notice of motion for 23.11.2010. However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they 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.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that one of the petitioners, Rani surrendered before learned trial Court and admitted to regular bail and that hence, application for anticipatory bail filed on her behalf has become infructuous. It is further stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No.1 –Nirmala has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 27.10.2010. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner No. 1 –Nirmala has joined the investigation and that she is no more 2 CRM No.M-31572 of 2010 required for any custodial interrogation. It has also been stated that petitioner No.2 has surrendered before learned trial Court and has been granted regular bail. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner No.1 is likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner No.2 –Rani is dismissed as rendered infructuous. So far as the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner No. 1 – Nirmala is concerned, the same is accepted and order dated 27.10.2010 granting interim bail in her favour is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 26, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3