Criminal Misc. No.M-16788 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-16788 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.10.2010 Lakhbir Singh @ Lakhi and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. None for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 28.5.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P-4) in FIR No. 42 dated 11.7.2009, under Sections, 323, 324, 326, 341, 506 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Panjokhra (Annexure P-3) was ordered to be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition qua petitioner No.2 with liberty to enable him to file a petition after he is allowed bail in FIR No.24 dated 7.3.2010. Criminal Misc. No.M-16788 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.2 with liberty as aforesaid. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 has further submitted that the bail allowed to petitioner No.1 vide order dated 29.8.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala has been cancelled on the ground that petitioner No.1 is habitual offender and after the registration of the FIR in question, another FIR has been registered against him under Section 307 IPC etc. Petitioner No.1 was allowed bail in the latter FIR by this Court vide order dated 25.5.2010. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 has also submitted that the statements of the material witnesses have since been recorded before the trial Court. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. FIR in question was registered against petitioner No.1 on the basis of the statement made by Baljit Singh. As per the complainant, petitioner No.1 had inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant along with other co-accused with dandas. FIR in question was registered against petitioner No.1 on 11.7.2009. Vide order dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner No.1 was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that petitioner No.1 was in custody for the last more than 1 ½ month Criminal Misc. No.M-16788 of 2010 (O&M) 3 and the pendency of the other cases was duly noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while allowing the bail to petitioner No.1. Thereafter, FIR No.24 dated 7.3.2010 was registered against petitioner No.1 under Sections 148, 149, 307, 506 IPC. Section 323 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act were added later on. CRM-M No.10700 of 2010 was filed by petitioner No.1 seeking regular bail in the said FIR and the same was allowed vide order dated 25.5.2010 passed by this Court (Annexure P-7). Since petitioner No.1 has been allowed bail in the FIR registered against him under Section 307 IPC, there was no ground for cancelling the bail allowed to petitioner No.1 in the FIR in question. Moreover, learned State counsel has failed to point out that petitioner No.1 has misused the concession of bail in this case. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order dated 28.5.2010 (Annexure P-9), whereby the bail granted to petitioner No.1 was cancelled, is quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 04, 2010 anita