CRM Nos.M-26375 & 26914 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-26375 of 2010 Harbinder Singh and Sudhir Kale ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-26914 of 2010 Vijay Kumar Babbar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Date of Decision:-29.9.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Karambir Singh Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G.Haryana. Mr.Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved in the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioners Harbinder Singh and Sudhir Kale and Vijay Kumar Babbar, have filed the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused namely Gopal Singh, vide FIR No.328 dated 29.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 427 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station CRM Nos.M-26375 & 26914 of 2010 2 City Jagadhri, Distt.Yamuna Nagar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 3. The present case was registered on the complaint of Lalita Devi complainant under section 156 (3) Cr.PC, in which, it was alleged that she had purchased grouting material/tiles for construction of her house, which was subsequently found to be of sub-standard quality. The roof started leaking. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, this case was registered against the accused, in the manner described here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petitions was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this context. 6. The dispute appears to be purely of a civil nature. Whether any criminal offence is made out or not from the facts of the case, will be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Bhupinder Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 7. 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 petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for CRM Nos.M-26375 & 26914 of 2010 3 interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they 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) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 9. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 29.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge