IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 23872 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 28, 2010. Rahamdeen and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K.Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CRM No.56139 of 2010 Requests for placing on record Annexure P5, copy of order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhri. The same is taken on record. CRM application stands disposed of. CRM No.M-23872 of 2010 CRM No.M-23872 of 2010 The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in complaint case No.306 of 2009, dated 22.01.2009, under Sections 420/379/120-B IPC, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 18.08.2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.42480 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-23872 of 2010 Argues that petitioner No.1 is Ex-Sarpanch, whereas petitioner nos.2 to 4 are related to petitioner no.1. Further argues that complainant had cut and removed eucalyptus trees, belonging to Gram Panchayat and for that petitioner no.1 had made a complaint to the police as well as to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and when no action was taken by the police, he also filed criminal complaint. Further contends that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant as a counter-blast to the same. Further contends that the petitioners have been summoned by learned trial Court for 14.9.2010 to face trial under Sections 379, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC. Further contends that petitioners are ready to appear before learned trial Court and face trial. It has been stated that next date fixed before learned trial Court is 14.9.2010. Notice of motion for 20.9.2010. However, petitioners are directed to appear before learned trial Court on the date fixed and in case they so appear and apply for regular bail, they be admitted to bail by learned trial Court 2 CRM No.M-23872 of 2010 subject to any conditions that may be deemed to be imposed by it.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail by learned trial Court vide order dated 14.09.2010, Annexure P5. It is further contended that they will continue to appear before learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed these facts. 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 application filed on behalf of Rahamdeen, Fakru, Iddu and Saalim is accepted and order dated 18.08.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may be imposed by learned trial Court. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 28, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3