Crl.M.No.M 3952 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M 3952 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 11, 2010 Gurbachan Singh and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G. Haryana. Mr.H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.9, dated 15.1.2010, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, at Police Station Sadar, Karnal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 10.2.2010, passed the following order: “ Argues that it is a case of broken engagement for marriage and that petitioners have already been ready to exchange the gifts with the complainant given to bride and bridegroom at the time of ring ceremony and for that purpose panchayat was also held and that petitioners were always ready Crl.M.No.M 3952 of 2010 (O&M) -2- to comply with the decision of the panchayat, Annexures P6 to P8. Further argues that even today they are ready to hand over the gifts received at the time of ring ceremony. Notice of motion for 11.3.2010. However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they 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 pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have already joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any investigation. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant. 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, order dated 10.2.2010, granting interim bail to petitioners-Gurbachan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Baljeet Kaur and Jujhar Singh is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 11.3.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M 3952 of 2010 (O&M) -3-