Crl.M.No.M-26122 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. Crl.M.No.M-26122 of 2010 (O&M) Rohit Goel .....Petitioner v. The State of Haryana .....Respondent 2. Crl.M.No.M-26126 of 2010 (O&M) Sunny Mittal .....Petitioner v. The State of Haryana .....Respondent 3. Crl.M.No.M-27124 of 2010 (O&M) Abhishek Mittal .....Petitioner v. The State of Haryana .....Respondent Date of Decision:October 11, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.M.Anand,Addl.A.G.. Haryana Mr.D.S.Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of all the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M.Nos.M-26122, 26126 and 27124 of 2010, filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.344, dated 24.8.2010, under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Crl.M.No.M-26122 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Sonepat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. A coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl.M.No.M-26122 of 2010, passed the following order on 8.9.2010: “Crl.Misc.No.46659 of 2010 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.Misc.No.M-26122 of 2010 Heard. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the first version of the complainant, contained in the application dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) made to the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, the petitioner was never named as the person who received the amount in dispute and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Notice of motion for 11.10.2010. In the meanwhile, in the case of arrest of the petitioner, in the FIR mentioned in the petition, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:- (i)He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (ii)He shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and (iii)He shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court.” While issuing notice of motion in Crl.M.No.M-26126 of 2010, the same Bench passed the following order on the same day, i.e., 8.9.2010: Crl.Misc.No.46672 of 2010 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-26122 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Crl.Misc.No.M-26126 of 2010 Heard. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the first version of the complainant, contained in the application dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) made to the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, the petitioner was never named as the person who received the amount in dispute and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Notice of motion for 11.10.2010. In the meanwhile, in the case of arrest of the petitioner, in the FIR mentioned in the petition, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:- (i)He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (ii)He shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and (iii)He shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court.” This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl.M.No.M- 27124 of 2010, passed the following order on 22.9.2010: Crl.M.No.48361 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-27124 of 2010 Heard. Contends that dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Further contends that first version of the complaint contained in Annexure P3, was already got investigated in which no role of present petitioner was found. Further contends that present FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to Annexure P2, given by father of petitioner against the complainant. Further contends that on similar facts co-accused Rohit Goel and Sunny Mittal have already been granted Crl.M.No.M-26122 of 2010 (O&M) -4- interim bail by this Court in Crl.M.Nos.M-26122 and 26126 of 2010. Notice of motion for 11.10.2010. However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. To be heard alongwith Crl.M.Nos.26122 and 26126 of 2010.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. However, bail applications have been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, orders dated 8.9.2010 and 22.9.2010, granting interim bail to petitioners-Rohit Goel, Sunny Mittal and Abhishek Mittal, are, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Present petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 11.10.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge