Crl. Misc. No. M-6320 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-6320 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.7.2010 Ajay Bansal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Atun Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 506, 419, 468, 469, 471 IPC and 66-A, 66-D I.T. Act, 2010 at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, District Hisar, vide FIR No.54 dated 29th January, 2010. The FIR was registered on the basis of letter endorsed by District & Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide Endst. No.8 D&SJ, dated 20.01.2010 to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, alleging that the petitioner had sent an email to the High Court, contents whereof read as under:- “To the Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Dear Sir, Please do note that on 1.2.2010 in between 8.00 A.M. To 11.59 P.M. Hon'ble Justice R.C. Gupta, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh will be Crl. Misc. No. M-6320 of 2010 assassinated. Pankaj Sandhir 24.2.2010 Kothi No.21, Urban Estate 2, Hisar.” After complaint was lodged by District & Sessions Judge, Hisar regarding the aforesaid email, the instant FIR was registered against the petitioner on 29th January, 2010. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned senior counsel has argued that petitioner has been in custody for the last about 5½ months and case is triable by the Magistrate. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that his undertaking may be recorded to the effect that petitioner shall not indulge in any such activity in future. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the case is triable by Magistrate and petitioner has been in custody for more than five months. He has further urged that in case bail is granted to the petitioner, same be subject to stringent conditions. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that petitioner is involved in five cases and he is in habit of issuing threats to various authorities. He has referred to affidavit filed by Amrik Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hansi in this regard. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that allegations against the petitioner are Crl. Misc. No. M-6320 of 2010 serious in nature as he is alleged to have sent a threatening email to the High Court. This apart, a perusal of the affidavit filed by the State shows that the petitioner is also involved in five cases, two of which pertain to such threatening e-mails. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the assurance given to this court by Mr. Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate, supported by undertaking of wife of the petitioner, which is taken on record as Mark 'A', this court is of the considered view that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. This, however, will be subject to such terms and conditions which the trial court may impose. Apart from heavy surety, the petitioner will be required to furnish an undertaking as deemed fit by the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Hisar. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 16.7.2010 'rajpal'