CRM No.M-23154 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-27.9.2010 Rujdar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioners Rujdar and others, have directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other main co- accused namely Anis, vide FIR No.252 dated 21.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 308, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Punhana, Distt.Mewat, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh,J.), while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order on 12.8.2010:- “Heard. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the injury, which is stated to fall under Section 308 IPC, has not been attributed to any of these petitioners and that the injury attributed to petitioner No.3 was caused with the help of lathi and was found to be simple in nature. Notice of motion for 27.9.2010. In the meanwhile, the event of arrest, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the CRM No.M-23154 of 2010 2 Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:- i) they shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; ii) they 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)they shall not leave the limits of this Country without prior permission of the Court.” 3. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Subhash Chand, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in this case. 5. As is evident from the record that no specific role is attributed to the petitioners. The main injury, subject matter of offence punishable under section 308 IPC, is assigned to main accused Anis, who is not petitioner before me. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. As they have already joined the investigation, therefore, nothing is to be recovered form them. Moreover, their custodial interrogation is not required at this stage. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as indicated 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, the present petition deserves to be allowed, in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, CRM No.M-23154 of 2010 3 subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they 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) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to say that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 27.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge