IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21938 of 2009 Date of decision : September 03, 2009 Shamsher Singh and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. PS Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. KS Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with Mr. MS Gill, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Shamsher Singh and Gurnishan Singh have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 222 dated 14.11.2007 under sections 406, 420, 465, 467 IPC, Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the complainant paid Rs 9 lacs to the petitioners for sending the complainant abroad. The complainant also paid Rs 7 lacs to petitioners' co-accused Chetan Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners were found innocent in inquiries conducted by four different Criminal Misc. No. M-21938 of 2009 -2- gazetted police officers but inspite thereof, challan has been presented against the petitioners and therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail because they have been found innocent in all the inquiries. On the other hand, learned State counsel pointed ut that Superintendent of Police (D) Moga vide report dated 24.12.2007, Annexure P/2 found the petitioners to be guilty. However, learned counsel for the petitioners countered this argument by contending that the same officer vide his case diary dated 10.4.2008, Annexure P/3, found the petitioners innocent after some more evidence was collected. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that challan has been presented against the petitioners because evidence was found to be sufficient for prosecuting them and allegations against the petitioners are serious as huge amount of Rs 9 lacs was paid to them. It was contended that exceptional case has to be made out for grant of anticipatory bail. It was also submitted that the petitioners appeared before the trial Magistrate and furnished bail bonds for interim bail. On 8.8.2009, the petitioners did not appear there and therefore, non-bailable warrants have been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that pursuant to interim bail order dated 1.4.2009, Annexure P/7 granted by Sessions Court, the petitioners appeared in the court of trial Magistrate and furnished bail bonds for interim bail but petitioners' petition for anticipatory bail was later on dismissed by Sessions Court vide order dated 5.8.2009, Annexure P/9 and therefore, the petitioners could not appear before the trial Magistrate on 8.8.2009 as they wanted to approach this court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Criminal Misc. No. M-21938 of 2009 -3- The petitioners were found innocent by three different gazatted officers i.e. DSP Dharamkot, DSP Bagha Purana and SP(D) Moga in inquiries conducted separately by them. It is correct that challan has since been presented against the petitioners but keeping in view all the circumstances, the petitioners deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, in my considered opinion. The instant petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioners on appearance before the trial Magistrate on 4.9.2009, the date said to be fixed there, shall be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions specified in section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Nothing observed hereinabove shall influence the merits of the case. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 03, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'