Crl. Misc.-M No.15040 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl Misc.-M No.15040 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.08.2011 Noor Mohd. Lamberdar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Crl. Misc.-M Nos. 15040 and 15454 of 2011 arising out of same FIR. The petitioners herein are accused in FIR No. 134 dated 23.4.2008 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat. The petitioners are in custody since 22.6.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that prosecution has filed cancellation report pertaining to eight accused in the court. In that very report it has been mentioned that in fact, material against four other persons, namely, Rajender Singh Kanungo, Jamil Ex. Sarpanch Kheri Kankar, Harkaran Singh Yadav R/o Nuh, Nur Mohd. Namberdar Kheri Kankar is similar and application seeking permission for further investiga- tion of the case was filed by the prosecution. Though the same has been re- jected by the learned Magistrate but revision against that order filed by the State is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that it is a case in which placing reliance on Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.5877 of 1992 titled as Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana decided on 13.3.2003, mutations of the Shamlat land entered in the name of the Gram Crl. Misc.-M No.15040 of 2011 2 Panchayat were cancelled and the land was transferred in the name of share- holders in the village. In terms of the mutations entered in the revenue rec- ord, the shareholders had sold their share of land to the vendees. There was no illegality or irregularities in the recording of mutations as the same was done strictly in terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jai Singh’s case (supra). Further while placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in Smt. Kamlesh Vs. State of Haryana 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 974, Sukh- dev Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 291 and Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana in Crl. Misc.-M No.9014 of 2011 decided on 29.4.2011, it was submitted that the trial in the present case having not been concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for prosecution evidence, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that in further investigation no case was made out against some of the co-accused and the cancellation report was submitted in court against them. Allegations against the petitioners were also found to be similar and permission was sought from the court for further investigation in their cases as well. Learned Magistrate having rejected the permission for further investigation, the State has filed revision before the Sessions Judge, which is pending. Learned State counsel further did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 22.06.2010 and the trial in the present case has not been concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for prosecution evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without comment- ing on the merits of the controversy finding that it is a case triable by the Magistrate and the petitioners are in custody for more than one year, they are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfac- tion of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Nuh. The petitions are disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 04.08.2011 sharmila