CRM No.M-34138 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-19.1.2011 Ram Kishan son of Daulat Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sartap Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Sessions Judge, petitioner Ram Kishan son of Daulat Ram, has instituted the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused and daughter Meenakshi, wife of Vijay Kumar (complainant), son Sanjeev Kumar and Narain Singh Ruhil, vide FIR No.97 dated 17.7.2008 (Annexure P5), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 380 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station City Nawanshahar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that marriage of complainant Vijay Kumar was solemnized with Meenakshi, daughter of the petitioner, as back as on 8.5.1995 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A female child was born on 1.4.1996 and male child was born on 9.1.2001 out of the said wedlock. They could not adjust with each other and many disputes arose between them. Meenakshi left the home of her husband Vijay Kumar (complainant) and it was alleged that while leaving the house, she hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused and stolen share certificate, bank pass book and cheque book. They forged the signatures of the complainant and Narain Singh Ruhil filed a false complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him. Thus, the accused were stated to have cheated the complainant, committed forgery, prepared false documents and used the same as genuine. On the basis of aforesaid CRM No.M-34138 of 2010 2 allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage and nothing is to be recovered from him. 6. Moreover, what is not disputed here is that marriage of complainant Vijay Kumar was solemnized with Meenakshi, co-accused and daughter of the petitioner on 8.5.1995. Two children were born out of the said wedlock. They could not adjust with each other, culminating in the prolonged various types of litigations. First of all, the matter was compromised between the parties, vide compromise dated 18.9.2007 (Annexure P2). Thereafter, the complainant filed a divorce petition (Annexure P3), to which, Meenakshi filed written statement (Annexure P4). As per version of the complainant, his wife Meenakshi hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused and took away sale certificate, bank pass book and cheque book, while leaving her matrimonial home three years prior to the lodging of the present FIR. 7. So, taking into consideration the fact that theft was stated to have been committed by the accused three years prior to registration of the case, the allegations, counter allegations and the variety of litigations between the parties, depicted here-in-above, to me, the false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is not a matter of dispute that the Sessions Judge, while declining the prayer of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, allowed the anticipatory CRM No.M-34138 of 2010 3 bail to Meenakshi, the main accused and daughter and Sanjeev Kumar son of the petitioner, by virtue of order dated 13.11.2010 (Annexure P11). Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit to the petitioner under the same set of circumstances, particularly when he has already joined the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from him. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 9. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) he 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 10. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. However, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant direction. 19.1.2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge