IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 33754 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.12.2010 Gurmeet Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.RS Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Gazi Mohd. AAG, Punjab *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Gurmeet Ram under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 354 dated 6.12.2008 registered under Sections 307,326, 323, 324, 341, 427, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 7.12.2010 passed the following order:- “Contends that petitioner could not appear before learned Magistrate in committal proceedings on 12.3.2010 as he was in custody in some other case on that day and the said fact is also proved from the impugned order dated 6.8.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, where custody certificate was produced on behalf of the petitioner- accused, issued by Superintendent, Central Jail, Kapurthala. It has also been contended that though interim bail was allowed CRM No.M 33754 of 2010 -2- by learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, he could not be released on bail by learned Magistrate as he was not competent to admit him to bail for offence under Section 307 IPC. Notice of motion for 24.12.2010. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to appear before learned Magistrate within ten days from today and if he so appears and applies for regular bail, he be admitted on interim bail by learned Magistrate subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by it. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail by learned trial Court on 13.12.2010. It is further contended that he 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 petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is 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 petitioner Gurmeet Ram is accepted and order dated 7.12.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court. December 24, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE