Anil Kumar vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated criminal petitions bearing CRM No. M-17762 of 2014 titled Anil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-18087 of 2014 titled Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana (in short "2nd case), arising out of the same case, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.

Petitioners, have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No. 99 dated 20.09.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 506 and 216 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 25 of The Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

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 petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed, by this Court on May 26, 2014, in 1st case-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that neither his name is mentioned nor any specific role or particular injury is attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner was subsequently involved in this case and during the course of investigation, he was found innocent and exonerated by the police. In the wake of application u/s 319 Cr.P.C., petitioner was summoned to face the trial as an additional accused by the trial Court without any legal ground.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 15.07.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear/surrender before the next date of hearing and the trial Court would admit him to interim (provisional) bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

Sequelly, similar order was passed on May 26, 2014, in 2nd case, as well.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the true copy of order dated 03.06.2014, which would reveal that the bail and surety bonds furnished by the petitioners, in pursuance of orders of this Court, were accepted and attested by the trial Court.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petitions for anticipatory bails are accepted. The interim (provisional) bails already granted to the petitioners, by way of indicated orders of this Court, are hereby made absolute.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions for anticipatory bails.