Crl. Misc. No.M-310 of 2011 (O&M) ****** Simranjit Singh @ Rinky Vs. State of Punjab Present : Mr. R. S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. ******* AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM No.M-310 of 2011 and CRR No.44 of 2011 since they both emanate from the same set of allegations. This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No.54, dated 25.05.2010 registered under Sections 302/34 IPC at Police Station Rahon, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and he was originally found innocent but later on he was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against which he filed a separate revision petition bearing CRR No. 44 of 2011. These facts are not denied by learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.:- Crl. Misc. No.M-310 of 2011 (O&M) -2- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that the petitioner 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; iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.01.2011 at 10.00 A.M. Accordingly, CRM No.M-310 of 2011 is disposed of. As regards the challenge to the summoning order, I find that even though no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner in the F.I.R. yet it has been mentioned that the petitioner is one of the persons who was involved in the murder of the deceased. A possibility that further evidence may not point to the guilt of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, I find no palpable perversity or any arguable arbitrariness in the order summoning the petitioner. Consequently, the challenge to the summoning order must fail. Accordingly, CRR No.44 of 2011 is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 14, 2011. JUDGE ashish