Crl. Misc No. M 20095 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M 20095 of 2011 Date of decision : September 19, 2011 Jagdish ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another, ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, DAG Haryana Mr. R.S.Malik, 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.153, dated 6.5.2010, registered under Sections 148, 302/149 of the IPC, at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat. On 21.7.2011, the following order was passed :- “ This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.153 dated 6.5.2010 registered under Sections 148, 149, 302 IPC at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat. On 11.07.2011, the following contention was noticed :- ` Learned counsel states that the petitioner was originally found to be innocent and has now Crl. Misc No. M 20095 of 2011 ::2:: been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.' On instructions from ASI Mahinder Singh learned Assistant Advocate General has accepted these factual assertions. She has however very fairly stated that since the prosecution has found the petitioner innocent it would be more appropriate if the complainant is impleaded as a party so that he can plead his case before this Court. Accordingly, Sadhu Ram s/o Sh. Chaitram r/o village Dahar, District Panipat is impleaded as respondent No.2. Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the memo of parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to serve the respondent No.2 by way of dasti process. Let notice be issued to the respondent No.2 for 12.8.2011. Dasti only. In the meantime, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed.” Counsel for the complainant has argued that since the petitioner has been positively identified by the complainant (who was an eye witness), he should be denied the concession of anticipatory bail. In my opinion, if the petitioner is found guilty, he would obviously be liable to suffer whatever punishment is meted out to him but at this stage it is not disputed that he is appearing regularly before the Court and has not misused the concession of interim bail. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on regular bail to its satisfaction. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 19, 2011. JUDGE `kk'