CRM No.M-29588 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-23.11.2010 Davinder Singh son of Bakhshish Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Ms.Gursharan K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Davinder Singh son of Bakhshish Singh, has instituted the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other four co-accused, vide FIR No.61 dated 16.5.2010 for commission of the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 326 and 336 read with section 149 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Ajnala, Distt.Amritsar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going 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 context. 4. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Darshan Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from him. 5. What is not disputed here is that complainant party has already compromised the matter with the petitioner, vide compromise deed (Annexure P2). CRM No.M-29588 of 2010 2 The complainant and injured persons have also filed their respective affidavits (Annexures P3 to P5) in this regard. The factum of compromise has been acknowledged by the learned State counsel. It is not a matter of dispute that initially, the present case was registered against the petitioner alongwith his other four co-accused, who have been found innocent during the course of investigation by the investigating agency. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 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, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant 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 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 state 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 direction. 23.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge