IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 24729 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 5, 2010. Inder Pal Singh @Inda ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.38 dated 10.06.2010, under Sections 307/323/324/34 IPC, registered at Police Station ‘D’ Division, Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute between the parties has since been compromised due to intervention of respectable persons and relatives from both the sides. Further contends that there is only one injured-complainant in this case, namely, Saurav Seth, CRM No.M-24729 of 2010 who has also come present in the Court today alongwith his counsel admitting the factum of compromise. Further contended that moreover offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out as there is no medical report that any of the injuries received by the injured is dangerous to life and that injury has been inflicted on right cheek with iron rod. Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 25.08.2010 passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that simple injuries are attributed to the petitioner. Now the parties have amicably settled the dispute. Notice of motion for 24.9.2010. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be admitted to interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. He shall abide by the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 25.08.2010. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. 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. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Inder Pal Singh @Inda is accepted and order dated 25.08.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 2 CRM No.M-24729 of 2010 The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 5, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3