CRM-M No. 1820 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRM-M No. 1820 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2011 Amarjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. A.S. Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State. Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate for the complainant. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.181 dated 2.10.2009 under Sections 420 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Gurdaspur. On 28.1.2010, this Court has passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is neither a travel agent nor running some sort of business and he has nothing to do with the allegations contained in the FIR. CRM-M No. 1820 of 2010 2 Learned counsel further contends that in the case of co-accused Akwinder Kaur, notice of motion has been issued for 3.2.2010 and arrest has also been stayed. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 3.2.2010. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., which are as under:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) that the petitioner 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. (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.” On 27.10.2010, both the parties made statement that matter is under process of compromise. Vide order dated 3.12.2010, this Court has referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of compromise. Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide report dated 1.3.2011 has reported that parties could not reach any amicable settlement in the Mediation proceedings. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has argued that CRM-M No. 1820 of 2010 3 anticipatory bail application of co-accused Manjit Pal has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.1.2011. A perusal of the order dated 20.1.2011 passed by this Court on the application of co-accused Manjit Pal reveals that it has come on the record that Manjit Pal had deposited Rs.3,47,300/- in his Savings Bank Account, which he has allegedly received from the complaint. While in the present case, there seems to be no evidence against the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner seems to be totally unjustified as per the dictum of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal), 126 that ordinarily arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to exceptional cases; irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. Whether petitioner has received any money by playing fraud on the pretext that petitioner shall send the complainant to foreign country, is a matter of evidence. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Order dated 28.1.2010 is made absolute, subject to the limitations provided under Section 438(2) of the Code. Petitioner – accused shall participate in the investigation as and when he is required. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 30.03.2011 sk.