In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 16647 of 2011 Decided on Sept 19,2011 Jagdish Singh --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent AND CRM-M- 18017 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on Sept 19,2011 Bholi Kaur --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-16647 of 2011) and Mr.S.S.Salar,Advocate,for the petitioners (in CRM-M-18017of 2011) (O&M) Mr.A.S.Rai, DAG,Punjab Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M- 16647 of 2011 (Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and CRM-M-18017 of 2011 (O&M) (Bholi Kaur Vs. State of Punjab), in which the petitioners have prayed for regular bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No. 102 dated 02.9.2010, under Sections 382 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa. The allegations against the petitioners is that Jagdish Singh was driving the car and Bholi Kaur was accompanying with other co-accused CRM-M- 16647 of 2011 -2- who have robbed the complainant by giving them lift in their car. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Jagdish Singh is in custody from 07.3.2011 whereas Bholi Kaur is in custody from 25.4.2011 After notice, learned counsel for the State has filed the affidavit of Harpal Singh, PPS, D.S.P (Sub Division ) Mansa, to contend that there are two other FIRs against the petitioners, namely FIR No.114 dated 05.9.2010, under Section 392/365 IPC, Police Station Maur, District Bathinda and FIR No. 222 dated 17.9.2010 under Section 382 of IPC, Police Station, City Mansa. He has argued that the petitioners are habitual offenders, therefore, they should not be granted bail as there is likelihood of their repeating the said offences. Learned counsel for the petitioners ,however, submitted that in both the aforesaid FIRs, the petitioners are in custody from 14.3.2011 and 22.5.2011 respectively and have been produced on production warrants in those cases. It is submitted that the petitioners have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 13.4.2011 in FIR No.222 dated 17.9.2010 and in FIR No.114 dated 05.9.2010 on 31.3.2011. Besides, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no recoveries have been effected from them which is conceded by the learned State Counsel on instructions from HC Ram Shah. Rather, it is submitted that recoveries have been effected from the co-accused who were accompanying them in the alleged car which met with an accident after the alleged occurrence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. CRM-M- 16647 of 2011 -3- Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observations on the merit, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds with two local heavy sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, who shall be at liberty to impose any other condition at the time of releasing them on bail for the purpose of ensuring their presence in the trial of the case. Sept 19,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge