Crl.M.No.M-37913 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-37913 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19, 2011 Anil Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Indresh Goel, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.55, dated 21.5.2009, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302 IPC, at Police Station Linepar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 24.12.2010, passed the following order: “Crl.M.No.67212 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-37913 of 2010 Contends that it is a case of version and cross-version and that in fact FIR was lodged by petitioner-party and on the basis of cross-version, petitioner and seven more persons have been implicated as accused in this case. Further contends that petitioner was found innocent during investigation conducted by the DSP and hence he was not challaned and however he has been summoned to face trial by leaned trial Court on an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Further submitted Crl.M.No.M-37913 of 2010 (O&M) -2- that even as per version, Annexure P1, given by PW2- Sumitra before learned trial Court the only allegation against the petitioner-accused is that he came alongwith Ashok in a car lateron and gave kicks, fist and danda blows, whereas main injuries are attributed to co-accused Vikas and Sombir. Further contends that three of the accused, namely, Om Parkash, Smt.Parkashi and Smt.Tarawati have already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide separate orders dated 11.8.2009, passed in Crl.M.Nos.M-18115 and 16744 of 2009 respectively. It is also submitted that petitioner is ready to appear before learned trial Court and face trial. Notice of motion for 19.1.2011. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to appear before learned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and in case he so appears and applies for regular bail, learned trial Court is directed to admit him on interim bail subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by it.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already appeared before learned trial Court and has been admitted to interim bail vide order dated 4.1.2011. He has also tendered certified copy of the said order, which is taken on record. This fact has also not been disputed by learned State counsel. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 24.12.2010, granting interim bail to petitioner-Anil Kumar, is, hereby made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 19.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M-37913 of 2010 (O&M) -3-