CRM No. M-17302 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-17302 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.03.2011 Tarsem Lal and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for Mr. Rohit Sapra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.381 dated 19.8.2008 under Sections 406/420/422/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City, Karnal (Haryana). Learned counsel for the petitioners states that suit for recovery of outstanding amount due towards the bank is already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, therefore, initiation of criminal action against the petitioners is unjustified and uncalled for. Ms. Deepali Puri, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/bank states that it is true that recovery proceedings are pending against the guarantor and the principal borrower, including the petitioners, however, she states that borrower has mortgaged the land to the bank, which was earlier mortgaged in favour of third party. She has CRM No. M-17302 of 2010 (O&M) -2- further stated that bank has moved an application for cancellation of bail granted in favour of another co-accused. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, on the instructions of SI Churya Ram, who is present in the Court, states that petitioners have joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is required to recover the outstanding loan amount. This Court fails to understand how Investigating Officer can recover outstanding amount when admittedly recovery proceedings are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Demand of the Investigating Officer seems to be mala fide and unjustified. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 126, has observed that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing of personal bond and one surety each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, it is clarified that petitioners shall participate in the investigation as and when they are required by the Investigating Officer to do so. (Alok Singh) Judge March 23, 2011 R.S.