CRM-M 27910 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 27910 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.10.2009 Nirmal Kaur ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Sura, AAG Haryana for the respondent/State. Mr.S.N.Saini, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. ( Oral) This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.') in a complaint case filed under Sections 420, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC pending before Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa (Annexure P-1). Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide his order dated 19.8.2009 with a condition that the petitioners shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each on their surrendering before Area/Duty Magistrate within a week from 19.8.2009 failing which their bail shall stand cancelled. As the order was passed on 19.8.2009, the petitioners were to surrender before Area/Duty Magistrate upto 26.8.2009. The petitioners could not comply with the order dated 19.8.2009, therefore, an application CRM-M 27910 of 2009 -2- was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra for extension of time in which it was alleged that the petitioners being illiterate, could not understand the tenor of the order, therefore, they could not surrender within the prescribed time. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide his order dated 22.9.2009, declined the application. Notice of motion was issued in this case pursuant to which Sh.S.N.Saini, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same argument, which was raised before the Court below that though the certified copy which was applied on 20.8.2009 was received on 22.8.2009 yet due to illiteracy and misunderstanding, they could not surrender before the trial Court as directed within the prescribed time and there was no willful disobedience on his part. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the fact that earlier on the same allegations, one FIR was filed by the complainant in which the petitioner was found innocent and has now been again subjected to further harassment due to the present complaint, the present petition is allowed and order dated 22.9.2009 is set aside. The petitioners are granted time to appear before the Area/Duty Magistrate within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The other conditions laid down in the order dated 19.8.2009 about bail and its conditions shall remain intact. With these directions, the present petition is disposed of. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 23.10.2009 Judge Meenu