Criminal Misc.No.M-20113 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-20.9.2010 Kewal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Baldev Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Kewal Singh, has directed the present application for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him and his other co-accused, namely, Sukhpal Singh, Nirmal Singh and Gurjit Singh, vide cross DDR No.21 dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P3), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 323 and 452 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the application was issued to the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the instant case. 4. As is evident from the record that a cross case was also registered against the complainant party, arising out of the same occurrence. It is not a matter of dispute that Sukhpal Singh, Nirmal Singh and Gurjit Singh, the co-accused of the petitioner, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide order dated 3.8.2010. The complainant party and the accused party are closely related to each other. Moreover, the learned Criminal Misc.No.M-20113 of 2010 2 State counsel, on the instructions of HC Jagdev Singh, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage as the parties have compromised the matter. All 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. 5. 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 application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 6. 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 bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he is directed to 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. 6. Needless to say 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. 20.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge