IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No. M- 23047 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 1, 2010. Hitesh Bhardwaj ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M- 23061 of 2010(O&M) Rajesh Yadav ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.24 dated 28.10.2009, under Sections 379/411/188/120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon. CRM No.M-23047 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. This Court while issuing notice of motion in Criminal Misc. No. M-23047 of 2010 on 13.08.2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.41060 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-23047 of 2010 Argues that name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR. Further argues that petitioner is only a legal owner of stone crusher and he is indulging in legal activity by purchasing stones extracted by mining in a legal way by issuing receipts and that petitioner is ready to produce all the records. Further argues that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and that driver and owner of the dumpers, which were allegedly carrying stones extracted by illegal mining have already been arrested and released on regular bail. Further contends that petitioner has nothing to do with driver and owner of those dumpers/truck carrying stones. Further contends that he is being falsely implicated in this case just on the statement of co- accused without any basis. Notice of motion for 1.9.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” This Court while issuing notice of motion in Criminal Misc. No. M-23061 of 2010 on 13.08.2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.41075 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-23061 of 2010 Argues that name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR. Further argues that petitioner is only a legal owner of 2 CRM No.M-23047 of 2010 stone crusher and he is indulging in legal activity by purchasing stones extracted by mining in a legal way by issuing receipts and that petitioner is ready to produce all the records. Further argues that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and that driver and owner of the dumpers, which were allegedly carrying stones extracted by illegal mining have already been arrested and released on regular bail. Further contends that petitioner has nothing to do with driver and owner of those dumpers/truck carrying stones. Further contends that he is being falsely implicated in this case just on the statement of co-accused without any basis. Notice of motion for 1.9.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said orders dated 13.08.2010. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of Hitesh Bhardwaj and Rajesh Yadav, are accepted and orders dated 13.08.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners are, hereby, 3 CRM No.M-23047 of 2010 made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 1, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4