CRM.M-14698 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM.M-14698 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on 26.10.2009. Baldev Singh @ Grudev son of Piara Singh and others -- Petitioners vs. Harjinder Kaur --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.S.Joshi,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Veneet Chaudhary,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short,' Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in a complaint case No.73 of 2007 dated 14.6.2005/15.10.2007 filed under Sections 120-B,307,323,406, 498-A, 504,506 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal (now at Ambala). In this case, notice of motion was issued on 29.5.2009. The petitioners were directed to appear before the trial court on 20.7.2009 and were ordered to be released on interim bail on their furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of the order dated 29.5.2009, the petitioners had appeared before the trial Court and have been released on bail on 9.6.2009. A certified copy of that order is also placed on record. CRM.M-14698 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that before coming to the Court, the petitioners had applied for regular bail before the trial Court which was dismissed and, thereafter, the petitioners had filed bail application before this Court, which was also dismissed and since the aforesaid facts were not mentioned in the petition, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to bail. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that earlier regular bail application was filed before the Court below on a misconception because the petitioners were not in custody, therefore, the said bail application was found to be not maintainable and was dismissed vide order dated 08.7.2008 and bail application filed before this Court vide CRM-M 22510 of 2008 was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.11.2008 Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that co- accused Rachhpal had applied for anticipatory bail vide CRM-M 16179 of 2008 which has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.9.2008, in which the following order was passed:- “The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a private complaint filed by respondent-Harjinder Kaur. Pursuant to the interim order dated July 04,2008 the petitioner has already put in appearance before the trial Court. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the application for pre-arrest bail contending that the petitioner has tried to kill by strangulating her by pressing CRM.M-14698 of 2009 (O&M) 3 a stick on her neck. I have heard counsel for the complainant and seen the MLR dated May 28,2006. It will be a moot point during trial whether the injury attributed to the petitioner can be said to have been inflicted with an intention to cause death of the complainant. Since the petitioner has already put in appearance before the trial court in private complaint, the petition is allowed. Interim order dated July 04,2008 is hereby confirmed subject to the condition that the petitioner will continue to appear before the trial Court and will not absent himself without any sufficient cause. He will also not make any attempt to tamper the evidence or delay the proceedings in any manner”. Balwinder Singh, husband of the complainant, has also been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 1.10.2008 passed by this Court in CRM-M 16896 of 2008 , which is reproduced below:- “Petitioner-Balwinder Singh has brought this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in a complaint case No. 73 of 2007 titled as Harjinder Kaur Vs.Baljinder Singh Under Section 120-B, 307, 323, 406, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends CRM.M-14698 of 2009 (O&M) 4 that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court on July 11,2008, bail bonds have already been furnished before the trial Court. In this view of the matter, the order dated 11.07.2008, whereby the petitioner was granted interim bail, is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of”. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that regular bail application filed by the petitioner before the Court below under a misconception, which has been dismissed as not maintainable, does not effect the case of the petitioner and the order dated 17.11.2008 passed in CRM-M 22510 of 2008, is not on merit as the petitioner had withdrawn that petition. As the co-accused namely, Rachhpal Singh and in particular, Balwinder Singh, who is the husband of the complainant, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, I do find any reason not to grant bail to the present petitioners who have already been granted interim bail and there is no allegation that they have misused the concession of bail. In view of the above, order dated 29.5.2009 is made absolute. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 26.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge