LAWS(P&H)-1998-7-114

R.S. MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On July 24, 1998
R.S. Malik Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REPLY on behalf of respondent No 1 has been filed today in the Court. The same is taken on record. A copy of the same has been given to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. This Court on 13.10.1997 passed an order of anticipatory bail with conditions attached thereto. This is an application for extending the period of anticipatory bail because that order was for a period of 90 days only. The learned D.A.G. has argued that in addition to the prayer which was already granted in the earlier order dated 13.10.1997, the petitioners want some further relied viz. direction to State police to give at least a notice of 15 days if the petitioners are proposed to be arrested in any other case that may be registered against them in the State of Haryana. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he gives up the other additional reliefs which he claims in this application and confines his prayer only for the extension of the order of anticipatory bail passed on 13.10.1997 and regarding the notice in connection with arrest for any act of petitioner No. 1 during the course of his association with Haryana Olympic Association.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners states that after the order dated 13.10.1997, one F.I.R. was registered. The learned D.A.G. states that F.I.R. No. 7 dated 29.4.1998 in the State Vigilance Department, for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and the case is still under investigation. He also states that the learned Special Judge has released the petitioners on anticipatory bail in that case. Before passing of the order dated 13.10.1997, the petitioners could not give the specific serial number of the F.I.R. because no F.I.R. was filed against them till that time. However, they feared a criminal case(s) against them and, therefore, order so far as grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, was passed as follows :