IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-33902 of 2009 Date of decision : 21.1.2010 Narinder Kumar Dang … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harinder S.Beniwal, DAG, Haryana. Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the complainant. Sabina J. Vide order dated 17.12.2009, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that offence under Section 354 IPC has already been deleted and injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature. Learned counsel for the State (on instructions from Inspector Randhir Singh, who is present in court) does not dispute the fact that offence under Section 354 IPC has been deleted. He further submits that petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation. Under the circumstances, it is directed that petitioner shall join the investigation forthwith. However, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. To come up on 21.01.2010.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation. Crl.Misc.No.M-33902 of 2009 Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. In reply to the submissions made by learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was a family dispute. Earlier, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner by his wife and now the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner by sister of the wife of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in fact, the complainant had entered into the shop of the petitioner and had ransacked the same. In the present case, offence under Section 354 IPC has been deleted. Thus, in the present case, it would be established during the trial as to whether the occurrence had taken place in the shop of the petitioner or as alleged by the complainant at her house. Since, the petitioner has joined the investigation and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the interim bail granted by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2009 is made absolute. Petition stands disposed of. [ Sabina ] Judge 21.1.2010 sd 2