CHANDERBHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail or otherwise, to the petitioners, are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions bearing CRM No. M -18511 of 2014, titled as Chanderbhan @ Nanha Versus State of Haryana and another (for brevity "the 1st Case") and CRM No. M -23360 of 2014, titled as Sanjay Versus State of Haryana and another (for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition.

(2.) THE petitioners have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a criminal case instituted against them, on a private complaint by complainant Preetam son of Anoop Singh (respondent No. 2), in which, they were summoned to face the trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, by the trial Magistrate.

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