Crl.M.No.M-8688 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-8688 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 17, 2010 Tarashpal .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Anand, Addl. A.G, Haryana. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.343, dated 14.7.2009, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station City Gurgaon, District Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 23.3.2010, passed the following order: “Crl.M.No.15691 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-8688 of 2010 Argues that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and that he had purchased the property in dispute through authorised property dealer after verifying the title of the owner and that when he came to know that sale- deed has been executed by co-accused by forging power of attorney on behalf of real owner, he filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale-deed and for recovery of the amount Crl.M.No.M-8688 of 2010 (O&M) -2- against co-accused. It has further been contended that co- accused, who identified the real owner at the time of execution of power of attorney has already been admitted to anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Notice of motion for 4.5.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C..” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 23.3.2010, granting interim bail to petitioner-Tarashpal, is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 17.5.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge