CRM-M No.33438 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : November 17, 2011 1. CRM-M No.33438 of 2011 Ranjit Singh and another vs U.T.Chandigarh & Ors. 2. CRM-M No.33460 of 2011 Dr. Sangeeta Singh vs U.T.Chandigarh 3. CRM-M No.33592 of 2011 Surinder Singh Malik and another vs U.T.Chandigarh *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M Nos.33438 and 33460 of 2011. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M No.33592 of 2011. Mr. J.S.Toor, Advocate for U.T.Chandigarh Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate for the complainant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of CRM-M Nos. 33438, 33460 and 33592 of 2011, as these petitions arise from the same FIR. CRM-M No.33438 of 2011 ::2:: The petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.215, dated 15.10.2011, registered under Sections 363, 366-A of the IPC, at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh. On 7.11.2011, the following contentions were noticed :- “ Learned counsel have argued that the present is a case where the 16 years old girl ran away with the main accused. They were recovered after 20 days and the present petitioner(s) were not guilty of any conspiracy. As per learned counsel after the recovery of the girl, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and as per their information in that statement she has unequivocally admitted that she had gone with the main accused of her own volition.” Counsel for the petitioners have today argued that the petitioners have joined the investigation. Counsel for the U.T.Chandigarh has accepted the fact that a 16 years old girl ran away with the main accused and in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C she admitted that she had gone with him on her own volition. He has also accepted the fact that the petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required for any custodial interrogation. Counsel for the complainant has, however, again opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. In my considered opinion, the allegations against the present petitioners are a matter of evidence and in view of the admitted position brought out above, it would not be in the interest of justice to subject the petitioners to arrest. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Consequently, in the event of their arrest the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer to his satisfaction subject to the conditions as laid CRM-M No.33438 of 2011 ::3:: down in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Petitions stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 17, 2011. JUDGE `kk'