Crl.M.No.M 3521 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M 3521 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 10, 2010 Dilbagh Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.47, dated 28.11.2009, registered under Sections 324, 427, 325, 326/34 IPC, at Police Station Kotli Surat Malli, District Batala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 8.2.2010, passed the following order: “ Argues that the present case is of version and cross- version and that co-accused were already granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. Further contends that only one incised wound has been attributed to the petitioner and initially FIR was registered for offences under Sections 324, 427 read with Section 34 IPC and petitioner was released on bail, however, offence under Section 326 IPC was added later on. Crl.M.No.M 3521 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Notice of motion for 10.3.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he 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. “ It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any investigation. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. The other facts pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner have also not been disputed. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is 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, order dated 8.2.2010, granting interim bail to petitioner-Dilbagh Singh is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10.3.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge