IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M- 35191 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.03.2010. Jarnail Singh. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and another. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S.Dalee, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by Jarnail Singh for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case criminal complaint No.65, dated 25.02.2009 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, titled as Baljit Kaur v. Jarnail Singh and others. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. CRM No.M-35191 of 2009 Summons to respondent No.2 were issued Dasti and the same has been returned with the report ‘refused’. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had been appearing before learned trial Court and that however, only on one date he could not appear on account of injuries suffered by him and that he had also filed an application for exemption before learned trial Court which was dismissed. While issuing notice of motion on 23.12.2009, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:- “As per the additional affidavit, the petitioner could not appear before the court on account of injury suffered by him. He had also filed an application for exemption which was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed an anticipatory bail application before the Court of Sessions and he was directed to appear before the trial court within three days. The trial court was directed to admit the petitioner on interim bail. Trial court refused to accept the bail bonds on the ground that he was late by one day. The reasons given by the petitioner appear genuine. Notice of motion for 04.02.2010. The petitioner will appear before the trial court on or before 26.12.2009. If he does so, he will be permitted to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Arrest of the petitioner is stayed till then.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to that order and admitted to bail by it. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has been appearing before learned trial Court since then. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed by Jarnail 2 CRM No.M-35191 of 2009 Singh is accepted and order dated 23.12.2009 already granted in favour of the petitioner, is hereby made absolute subject to any conditions that may be imposed by learned trial Court. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 29, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3