Crl. Misc. No.M-2349 of 2011 (O&M) ****** Anil Dhiman Vs. State of Haryana Present : Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Man Mohan Sikka, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the complainant. ******* This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.217 dated 13.11.2010 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 39 of the Electricity Act at Police Station Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula. On 11.02.2011 the following order was passed:- “This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No.217 dated 13.11.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 506, 120- B IPC and Section 39 of the Electricity Act, registered at Police Station Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula. The allegation against the petitioner is that he used some false information to get an electricity connection in a plot which he had illegally occupied. It is not disputed that there is other litigation going on between the petitioner and the complainant. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that in any case this allegation should have come from the electricity department and actually this is a pressure tactic to force the petitioner to vacate the premises. Learned Crl. Misc. No.M-2349 of 2011 (O&M) -2- counsel for the complainant, has however, strongly opposed the bail application stating that the petitioner has illegally usurped his land and has stated that uptil now he has neither joined the investigation nor has got any recovery effected. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of ad interim bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner appear before the investigating officer on 22.02.2011 between 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M. who shall release him on anticipatory bail to his satisfaction. Adjourned to 08.03.2011.” Thereafter the petitioner has joined the investigation though as per learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana the petitioner should give the information that who was the officer in connivance with whom he had taken the power connection fraudulently. Apart from the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner is denying any fraudulent action it is not so difficult for the investigating officer to know as to who was the officer of the electricity department involved in the alleged fraud. In the circumstances, interim order dated 11.02.2011 is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. upto the filing of the challan, whereafter the petitioner would be required to seek regular bail. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 04, 2011. JUDGE ashish