Babita And ANR. v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-1035 of 2016 (O&M) .....

Date of decision:29.8.2016 Babita and another .....Petitioners v.

State of Haryana .....Respondent ....

(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-2410 of 2016 (O&M) .....

Devender Kumar and another .....Petitioners v.

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents ....

Present:

Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in criminal complaint No.140 of 2009 dated 14.5.2009 filed for the offences under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Notice of motion has been issued in these cases. Mr. Vikramjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.30 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-1035 of 2016 etc.

[2] Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. C.R. Dahiya, learned Advocate has appeared for the complainant and contested these petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the complaint is counter blast. It is further argued that no caste of the complainant as well as the accused has been mentioned in the complaint. From the record, I find that the present case is a complaint case. The petitioners are not required for investigation or interrogation purposes. The petitioners have already appeared before the trial Court and they have been released on interim bail in view of interim orders passed by this Court. The petitioners are only to face the trial.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present cases; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases, I find merit in these petitions and the same are allowed. The interim order dated 12.1.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No.M-1035 of 2016 and order dated 22.1.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No.M2410 of 2016 by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioners are made absolute.

August 29, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.30 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh