CRM-M 27460 of 2009 (2) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 20.10.2009. Jatinder Pal Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. AND CRM-M 27582 of 2009 Decided on 20.10.2009. Lalit Bansal -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia and Mr.Suresh Goel,Advocates, for the petitioners Mr.R.S.Rawat, A.A.G.Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M 27460 of 2009 (Jatinder Pal Singh Vs.State of Punjab) and CRM-M 27582 of 2009 (Lalit Bansal Vs. State of Punjab) filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for CRM-M 27460 of 2009 (2) 2 regular bail as they have arisen out of FIR No. 439 dated 24.8.2009, registered under Sections 420, 465,467, 468,471,34 IPC at Police Station, Sadar Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the main accused, namely Malkiat Singh and Bhinder Singh, both sons of Gurmukh Singh have already been taken into custody and the amount which is alleged to have been given by the complainant has already been recovered from them. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Jatinder Pal Singh petitioner is a Shop-Keeper manufacturing rubber stamps, whereas Lalit Bansal petitioner, is a Typist working in District Courts at Patiala. Learned counsel has relied upon an order passed in the case of a co-accused in CRM-M 26411 of 2009 (Manpreet Singh Vs.State of Punjab) in which regular bail has been granted on 08.10.2009 to Manpreet Singh, who is alleged to have printed the receipts, which are alleged to have been given by Malkiat Singh and Bhinder Singh against the amount received from the complainant. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are in custody since 24.8.2009. However, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the offence committed by both the petitioners is quite serious, therefore, bail should not be granted to them. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners deserve the concession of bail. CRM-M 27460 of 2009 (2) 3 In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed and both the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Patiala. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 20.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge