CRM No.M-26799 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-13.10.2010 Mahender Aggarwal son of Ram Kishan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioner Mahender Aggarwal son of Ram Kishan, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.266 dated 30.7.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420 and 379 IPC by the police of Police Station Punhana, Distt.Mewat, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner, who is a Government contractor, executed the work relating to the connections of M/s Vodafone Essar Digilink, Limited dated 23.11.2007, under the Self Execution Scheme. As per this scheme, the consumer himself was required to provide the material by purchasing from the market to the contractor for execution of the work. According to the prosecution that in the wake of an inquiry, it revealed that the consumer provided the material to the contractor belonging to the Electricity Board. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. CRM No.M-26799 of 2010 2 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to me, the present petition deserves to be allowed in this context. 5. As is evident from the record that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he executed the work of connections of M/s Vodafone Essar Digilink, Limited dated 23.11.2007, under the Self Execution Scheme. As per this scheme, the consumer himself was required to provide the material by purchasing from the market, to the contractor for execution of the work. The prosecution case is that in the wake of an inquiry, it revealed that the consumer provided the material to the contractor belonging to the Electricity Board. From where and in what manner, the consumer has purchased and provided the material is a different issue and the petitioner-contractor cannot possibly be blamed in this regard. 6. What is not disputed here is that the execution of the work was completed in the year 2007 while the present case was registered against the petitioner on 30.7.2009. Meaning thereby, there is a delay of two years in lodging the FIR in this respect. 7. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Satbir Singh, submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 8. So, 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, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present 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 CRM No.M-26799 of 2010 3 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 mention that 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 connection. 11. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 13.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge