Ranbir v. State Of Haryana

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

(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-27789 of 2015 .....

Date of decision:22.9.2015 Ranbir

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-28944 of 2015 .....

Kavita alias Geeta

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr. Misc.No.M-27789 of 2015.

Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.M-28944 of 2015.

Mr. Himmat Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the complainant in both the petitions.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This order will dispose of the above mentioned two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.457 dated 20.7.2015 registered for the HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2015.09.24 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-27789 of 2015 etc.

[2] offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat as these arise from the same FIR. Notice of motion has been issued in these cases and interim bail was also granted to the petitioners with the direction to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. Today, Mr. Himmat Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, learned has appeared on behalf of the complainantSurender and contested these petitions.

It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned State counsel, on instructions of ASI Suresh Kumar, who is present in the Court, that during the pendency of these bail petitions before this Court, the petitioners have also filed anticipatory bail applications before the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat, which bail applications are fixed for tomorrow i.e. 23.9.2015. As the anticipatory bail petitions have already been filed before this Court and the interim bail has also been granted, then there was no occasion for the petitioners to file the anticipatory bail applications before the learned Sessions Court.

In view of the conduct of the present petitioners, I do not find any ground to grant them the benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both these petitions are dismissed. September 22, 2015.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2015.09.24 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh