IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 21443 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 8, 2010. Tayyub and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh, A.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.20 dated 07.02.2010, under Sections 379/411/188/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Nagina, District Mewat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Brief allegations are that there was a secret information with the police that both the petitioners-accused were indulging in illegal mining and they were bringing stolen stones in dumper No. HR-74-0964 and hence, a Naka was laid. The dumper was seen returning from village Sikrawa and CRM No.M-21443 of 2010 however, after seeing the police party, the speed of dumper was accelerated and the driver of the dumper was succeeded in running away by unloading the stones. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 – Tayyub has since been arrested by the police and hence, the present petition qua him has become infructuous. Dismissed as rendered infructuous qua petitioner No.1. Further contended that petitioner No.2 has been falsely implicated in this case being brother of petitioner No.1. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that it came on interrogation of petitioner No.1, Tayyub that the dumper was being driven by petitioner No.2 -Nabbu @Nawab and both of them were indulging in transporting stones extracted by illegal mining in violation of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Petitioner No.1 – Tayyub is the owner of the dumper in which stones extracted by illegal mining were being transported. It came during investigation that the dumper was being driven by petitioner No.2, who succeeded in running away after unloading the stones from the dumper on seeing the police party. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra- ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner No.2- accused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present anticipatory bail qua petitioner No.2 – Nabbu @Nawab is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. 2 CRM No.M-21443 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 8, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3