Crl.M.No.M-24824 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. Crl.M.No.M-24824 of 2010 (O&M) Anil .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent 2. Crl.M.No.M-25544 of 2010 (O&M) Jai Pal .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent 3. Crl.M.No.M-29212 of 2010 (O&M) Mukesh @ Mukesh Yadav .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana ......Respondent Date of decision: November 8, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl.M.Nos.M-24824 and 25544 of 2010. Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.M.No.M-29212 of 2010. Mr.P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of all the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M.Nos.24824, 25544 and 29212 of 2010, filed by petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.14, dated 7.5.2005, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station SVB(H), District Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- Crl.M.No.M-24824 of 2010 (O&M) -2- accused that occurrence had allegedly taken place in the year 2001-02 when some building material was supplied by the present petitioners to the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Sirhol. Further contends that on similar facts, FIR bearing No.338, dated 25.11.2003 was registered against co-accused, i.e., Narayan Singh, the then Sarpanch of the village Gram Panchayat and in that case concession of anticipatory bail was also granted by this Court to him. Further contends that in that case challan has already been filed and the Sarpanch is facing trial and in the said FIR, the present petitioners were not made accused. Further contends that on the similar facts, another FIR, i.e., the present FIR bearing No.14 dated 7.5.2005 was registered. Further contends that now after about five years of the registration of the second FIR, on the same facts petitioners are sought to be arrested in this case. Further contends that petitioners have already closed their business and that the bills which were issued by the petitioners to the then Sarpanch are already in possession of the Investigating agency and that no other documents are in possession of the present petitioners. Further contends that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to orders of this Court granting interim bail to them. Though these facts have not been disputed by learned State counsel, however, bail applications have been opposed on the plea that petitioners in connivance with co-accused,i.e., Sarpanch of village, have embezzeld an amount of Rs.10 lacs of the Gram Panchayat. 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. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, orders dated 26.8.2010 and 1.9.2010, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, granting interim bail to petitioners-Anil and Jai Pal respectively and order dated 5.10.2010 passed by this Court granting interim bail to petitioner-Mukesh @ Mukesh Yadav, are, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. All the present petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 8.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M-24824 of 2010 (O&M) -3-