CRM-M 22448 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 22448 of 2009 Decided on Sept 11,2009. Varinder Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Chanan Singh,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.K.D.Sachdeva,Addl.A.G, Punjab, for the respondent/State Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.76 dated 09.7.2009, registered under Sections 454/380 IPC, at Police Station, Sangat, District Bathinda The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Magan Lal, who has stated that on 17.1.2008, some unknown persons broke open the lock of his house and committed theft of cash of Rs.82,000/-. He came to know from some reliable sources that CIA Staff, Bathinda has arrested many thieves who could give some clue regarding theft of his cash. Therefore, he has prayed that the case CRM-M 22448 of 2009 2 may be enquired from CIA Staff, Bathinda. Case of the prosecution is that Gurmeet Singh has admitted that he had trespassed into the house of the complainant and committed the theft and had stolen Rs.64,000/-. It is further alleged that at the time of occurrence, all the accused were standing outside and had received Rs.10,000/- each from Gurmeet Singh towards their share Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the alleged theft is dated 17.1.2008 regarding which the complaint was filed after a delay of seven months on 14.8.2008 and FIR was registered after a delay of 18 months on 09.7.2009. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a gold smith and runs a shop at village Pakka Kalan. Gurjeet Singh accused came to his shop on 21.2.2008 for the purpose of preparing a gold chain and gave him Rs.9000/-. The petitioner doubted his integrity, therefore, on 09.5.2008, returned his amount in writing (Annexure P-2) in the presence of Roop Singh Member Panchayat, Gurmel Singh Nambardar and Gurcharan Singh, who had attested the receipt. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, on 28.7.2009. Learned counsel for the State has filed reply submitting that the petitioner has been involved in FIR No. 35 dated 20.4.2008 under Sections 457/380/511/506 IPC Police Station, Sangat (Annexure R-1/T); FIR No.41 dated 26.4.2008, under Section 25/54/59 IPC of CRM-M 22448 of 2009 3 Arms Act, Police Station, Sangat (Annexure R-2/T); and FIR No. 42 dated 28.4. 2008 under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station, Sangat (Annexure R-3/T). He, however, admits that in none of the FIR, the petitioner has been named. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting/Investigating Officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall join the investigation as and when required by him. He shall further abide by the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Sept 11,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge