CRM-M- No. 19219 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M- No. 19219 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision : June 28, 2011
Dara Chand ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent
****
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see
judgement ?
2. To be referred to reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
Present : Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
Alok Singh, J (Oral)
This is the second application seeking anticipatory bail in FIR
No.308 dated 9.5.2011, under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B of
Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City, District Sirsa.
First application seeking anticipatory bail being CRM
No. M-18362 of 2011 was taken up for hearing on 7.6.2011. On 7.6.2011
Mr. Aman Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the
petitioner would surrender/appear before the competent Magistrate on or
before 25.6.2011 and shall move regular bail application, therefore, he may
be permitted to withdrawn this petition.
CRM-M- No. 19219 of 2011 (O&M) 2
On the statement made by Mr. Aman Bansal, learned counsel
for the petitioner, first anticipatory bail application was permitted to be
withdrawn with liberty to appear before the competent Magistrate on or
before 25.6.2011 and to seek regular bail therefrom.
Present second anticipatory bail application is moved by
different counsel Mr. Hitesh Verma.
Mr. Hitesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
argued that earlier bail application was withdrawn by Mr. Aman Bansal,
learned counsel for the petitioner, without any instruction from the
petitioner.
Since first anticipatory bail application was withdrawn with
liberty to surrender/appear before the competent Magistrate and to seek
regular bail therefrom, second pre arrest bail application is not maintainable.
Argument that earlier bail application was withdrawn by the then counsel
without any instruction from the petitioner seems to be after thought.
Moreover, petitioner in paragraph No.2 of this petition has asserted as
under :-
“Thereafter, the petitioner approached this
Hon’ble Court for grant of Anticipatory Bail vide CRM-M
No.18362 of 2011 which was listed before this Hon’ble
Court on 7th June 2011. But due to some inadvertent
mistake/miscommunication between the petitioner and his
counsel, the same was withdrawn by the counsel of the
petitioner on the ground that petitioner is ready to
surrender.”
CRM-M- No. 19219 of 2011 (O&M) 3
However, if petitioner surrenders/appears before the Magistrate
within ten days from today and seeks regular bail, same shall be decided
without any undue delay. Present petition stands dismissed accordingly.
(Alok Singh)
Judge
June 28, 2011
Anand