CRM No.M-23694 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-27.10.2010 Jagdish Singh son of Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the complainant. 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 Jagdish Singh son of Mohinder Singh, has applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused namely, Rajwinder Singh and Narinder Singh, vide FIR No.119 dated 8.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Dharamkot, Distt.Moga, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. 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 my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order on 24.8.2010:- “Heard. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Though the injured were declared fit to make the statement but they pretended to be unconscious and never came out with any such version on the first possible opportunity. He also submitted that the petitioner has CRM No.M-23694 of 2010 2 a cross-version against the complainant party and that the interim anticipatory bail was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, in pursuance of which the petitioner had joined the investigation. Notice of motion for 1.10.2010. In the meanwhile, in case of arrest of the petitioner, in the FIR mentioned in the petition, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:- i) He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; ii) He shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and iii)He shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court.” 4. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Balwinder Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has handed over the weapon of offence to the police. He is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 5. What is not disputed here is that Rajwinder Singh and Narinder Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 23.9.2010 in CRM No.M-23355 of 2010. It is a case of cross version. Which of the parties was the aggressor, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. 6. 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. 7. 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-23694 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. 8. 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. 27.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge