Crl. Misc No. M 6471 OF 2011 ****** Ashish Kaushik & another vs State of Haryana Present : Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S.Sra, Addl. A.G Haryana ******* The petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.119, dated 19.2.2011, registered under Sections 448/511/451/427/380/506/34 of the IPC, at Police Station City Gurgaon. On 1.3.2011, the following order was passed :- “ Learned Senior Counsel has argued that once the learned Sessions Judge has accepted the fact that there was some improvement in the case set up by the complainant, bail should not have been denied to the two petitioners. Notice of motion. Mr. Man Mohan Sikka, DAG, Haryana, at the asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply two copies of the petition to the learned DAG during the course of the day. Adjourned to 17.3.2011.” Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had noticed that the stand of the complainant was that the property was given to him on rent by the father of Braham Dutt Kaushik in 1970, while that person had died in 1954. Having noticed this, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also noticed the age of Braham Dutt Kaushik and granted him bail. In my considered opinion, once bail was granted to the father, there is no reason to deny it to his two sons. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Crl.Misc No. M 6471 of 2011 :2: Consequently, in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer to his satisfaction subject to the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 17, 2011. JUDGE `kk'