Full Judgment
CRM not M-10233 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-10233 of 2013 Date of Decision:25.04.2013 Nisar and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
**** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioners-Nisar son of Bashir and Mubarik son of Niwaz Khan, have directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them along with their other co-accused, vide FIR No.314 dated 16.06.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Nuh, District Mewat, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.2.
Notice of the petition was issued to the State.”
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
CRM not M-10233 o”
2. 4.
During the couRs.of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April 01, 2013:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that neither any specific role is attributed not petitioners are in any way connected with the indicated offences.
They have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police in order to wreak vengeance.
Heard.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 25.04.2013.
Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing.
In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to his satisfaction.”
.”
5. At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Udeyvir Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation.
They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage.
Moreover, no specific role is attributed to the petitioneRs.There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case.
Since, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.”
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted.
The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order dated April 01, 2013, is hereby made absolute, CRM not M-10233 o”
3. subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this respect.
April 25, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE