IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-32569 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.1.2010 Manjoor Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeev Virk, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. **** 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. Crl. Misc. No.2475 of 2010 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and complainant i.e. Pawan Ashri son of Dr. Satish Chander, resident of House No.792, Professor Colony, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2 subject to all just exceptions. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. Crl. Misc. No.32569-M of 2009 The FIR has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by one Pawan Ashri, President, Haryana Patarkar Kalyan Manch, Kurukshetra. As per the allegations in the FIR, Manzoor Singh hurled abuses and that he tried to kidnap and kill the complainant. CRM M-32569 of 2009 (O&M) -2- While opposing the bail, learned counsel for the complainant relies on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan reported as 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 473. Learned counsel for the State submitted that even though the petitioner has joined investigation, a pistol is yet to be recovered from him. While praying for the bail, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner and that none of the ingredients of the offence, as alleged in the FIR, are made out. Vide order dated 03.12.2009, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to the condition that he shall join the investigation. It is not denied that the petitioner has since joined the investigation. Moreover, Manzoor Singh is not shown to be armed with any weapon. No injury has been attributed to him. As far as recovery of pistol is concerned, it is seen that as per the facts in the FIR, the petitioner is not shown to be armed with the alleged pistol. In fact, it is mentioned in the FIR that all ran away from the spot except the petitioner. Thus, pistol, if any, would have been recovered from him there and then. In view of the above facts and also taking into consideration that the petitioner has since joined the investigation, the order dated 03.12.2009 is made absolute and the petition is allowed accordingly. 20.01.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE