IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36973 of 2009 Date of decision : February 8, 2010 Satish Kumar and another Petitioners Versus State of Haryana Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. R.C. Dogra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Balwinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Mor, DAG Haryana DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) On 24.12.2009, notice of motion was issued to Advocate General, Haryana and interim directions with regard to arrest of the petitioners was also issued and the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in compliance of order dated 24.12.2009, the petitioners have joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that opinion of the doctor was taken after delay of three months and two days and on the opinion given by the doctor Section 307 IPC was added later on and their bail application has been declined only on the ground that since Section 307 IPC has been added and being serious offence the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. The petitioners have not misused the concession of bail given by the Court. Moreover the petitioners are not required for further investigation. Crl. Misc. No. M-36973 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the respondent – State has also admitted that petitioners have jointed the investigation and opposed the bail on the ground that serious injury was caused by the petitioners. Since the petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required for further investigation, they have never misused the concession granted by the Court, the interim order dated 24.12.2009 granting anticipatory bail is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 08.02.2010 JUDGE reena