CRM- M 34229 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 34229 of 2011 Date of decision : November 25, 2011 Makhan Singh and others, ...... Petitioners v. Balwinder Kaur, ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Onkar Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail in complaint case No.143, dated 21.5.2008, titled as `Balwinder Kaur vs Makhan Singh and others', pending before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala. On 14.11.2011, the following contention was noticed :- “ Learned counsel has argued that from a perusal of the complaint (wrongly mentioned as FIR), it would be seen that the complainant and her family are notorious desperadoes who can go to any extent to achieve their nefarious designs and the present complaint (wrongly mentioned as FIR) has been lodged only as a pressure tactic. The main accused i.e the person with whom they had a dispute has been released on anticipatory bail and the counsel for the complainant had no objection thereto CRM- M 34229 of 2011 ::2:: as would be seen from the order.” Counsel for the respondent has stated that the matter has been pending since 2009 and it is only when proceedings to declare the petitioners as proclaimed offenders were initiated that they have approached this Court. As per the learned counsel, this shows the disregard with which the petitioners held the process of law. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that actually the petitioners were completely unaware of any proceedings pending against them and in any case if now protection is granted to them, they undertake never to miss any date before the learned trial Court. In these circumstance, I do not deem it appropriate to deny the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Consequently, in case the petitioners appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, they shall be released on bail by the trial Court to its satisfaction with the caveat that in case they do not unauthorizedly appear in the Court again and thereby violate the undertaking given before this Court, this order would be liable to be vacated. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 25, 2011. JUDGE `kk'