Crl. Misc. No.M-15299 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-15299 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 4, 2011 Shamsher Singh and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Sushama Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr.Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest, on having been summoned by the trial Court. The petitioners had approached the Sessions Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail but the learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court on the date of hearing fixed and stayed their arrest till the date they surrendered. Crl. Misc. No.M-15299 of 2011 [2] A perusal of the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated April 22, 2011 indicates that the application of the petitioners for pre- arrest bail was left without adjudication as the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to have forgotten to pass any order whether in case of appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court, they were to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds or their application for pre-arrest bail stood dismissed. As the application for pre-arrest bail was neither rejected nor allowed, it is deemed appropriate to adjudicate this petition. The petitioners were directed, vide interim order dated May 18, 2011 by this Court, to appear before the summoning Court and furnish bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had appeared before the trial Court and released on interim bail. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners have, despite the stay orders of the civil Court, have demolished the building. In support of his contention he relies on certain photographs. Without expression of any opinion on merits at this stage, it is sufficient to observe that the petitioners, pursuant to the summoning order have appeared before the summoning Court and furnish bail bonds as per interim order. The petition is allowed. Interim order dated May 18, 2011 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions that the petitioners will continue to appear before the trial Court and will not absent themselves without any sufficient cause. Crl. Misc. No.M-15299 of 2011 [3] August 4, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE