IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-21774 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 24, 2010. Kanhiya Lal ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh. ...... RESPONDENT(s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-22969 of 2010(O&M) Heera Devi ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh. ...... RESPONDENT(s) 3. Crl. Misc. No. M-23513 of 2010(O&M) Veena Behal ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh. ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate and Mr. O.P.Goel, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Rimplejeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. CRM No.M-21774 of 2010 Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate and Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of all the aforementioned petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.138 dated 06.07.2010, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl. Misc. No. M- 21774 of 2010 on 30.07.2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.38600 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-21774 of 2010 Argues that petitioner is only a depot holder and he has issued rations to the persons holding ration cards. Further argues that only allegation against petitioner is that some of the ration card holders were not residing on the addresses given in the ration cards. Further argues that issuance of ration cards and verification of addresses is not the job of the petitioner and that, in fact, ration cards are issued by the respondent-U.T., administration. Notice of motion for 24.8.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he 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.” 2 CRM No.M-21774 of 2010 This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl. Misc. No. M- 22969 of 2010 on 13.08.2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.40963-64 of 2010 Both the application are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-22969 of 2010 Heard. Argues that petitioner is only a legally appointed depot holder and she has issued rations to persons holding ration cards. Further argues that allegations against the petitioner- accused are that some of the ration-card holders were not supplied rations and were not residing at the addresses given in the ration cards. Further argues that issuance of ration cards and verification of the addresses is not the job of the petitioner and in fact the ration cards are issued by the respondent-U.T. Administration. It is further contended that petitioner has in fact supplied rations to ration-card holders and the same was also entered in the record. Petitioner is ready to produce all the record. Further contends that case of present petitioner is similar to co-accused, who has already been granted interim bail by this Court in Crl.M.No.M-21774 of 2010. Notice of motion for 24.8.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case she is arrested, she 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. To be heard alongwith Crl.M.No.M-21774 of 2010.” This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl. Misc. No. M- 23513 of 2010 on 19.08.2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.41886 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-23513 of 2010 Heard. 3 CRM No.M-21774 of 2010 Argues that petitioner is legally appointed depot holder. Further argues that she has supplied ration to all the ration card holders. Further contends that on the date of checking she had gone to take BPL rice from godown of the department and hence, shop was closed on that day. Further contends that case of present petitioner is similar to that of co-accused, Heera Devi, who has been granted interim relief by this Court in Crl.M.No.M-22969 of 2010. Notice of motion for 24.8.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case she is arrested, she 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. To be heard alongwith Crl.M.No.M-22969 of 2010” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said orders dated 30.07.2010, 13.08.2010 and 19.08.2010. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of Kanhiya Lal, Heera Devi and Veena Behal, are accepted and orders dated 30.07.2010, 13.08.2010 and 19.08.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners are, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 4 CRM No.M-21774 of 2010 The present petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 24, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 5