Crl. Misc. No.M-3917 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-3917 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.03.2010 Kulwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar in case FIR No.65 dated 14.07.2009 under Sections 323, 307, 341/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nurpur Bedi vide Order dated 26.09.2009. While seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide Order dated 26.09.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner states that documents P-3 and P-4 were not brought to the notice of the Court, from where, it is evident that the injury was grievous. It is further stated that on the same grounds, the bail of Harmesh Singh was declined by this Court on Crl. Misc. No.M-3917 of 2009 2 12.11.2009. While granting bail to respondent No.2, the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, observed as under :- “ Admittedly, the applicant-accused is in judicial custody since 04.09.2009 and he is no longer required for the purposes of investigation or recovery. The presentation of challan and its conclusion will take fairly long time. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.” Thus, the ground of consideration for grant of bail by the Sessions Judge was different. The bail of co-accused Harmesh Singh was declined by this High Court being an anticipatory bail, whereas, the respondent No.2 was granted regular bail. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the respondent No.2 has misused the concession of bail. Even otherwise, the ground raised herein is not sufficient to order the cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide Order dated 26.09.2009. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Judge 29.03.2010 gurpreet