CRM No.M-29371 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-26.10.2010 Jeevan Kumar alias Bhola ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, petitioner Jeevan Kumar alias Bhola s/o Surender Kumar, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.67 dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 379 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. 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, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 4. What is not disputed here is that complainant Om Parkash lodged a report of theft of his TATA Safari vehicle with the police of Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon, which formed the basis of instant FIR/case. The same very car was subsequently recovered from the petitioner at Bathinda. The police of Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda has already registered a criminal case against him, vide FIR No.619 dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure P2) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. CRM No.M-29371 of 2010 2 Whether the two criminal prosecution can be initiated against the petitioner for the same offence under section 379 IPC, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial of the case. It is not a matter of dispute that this Court, vide order dated 23.9.2010 (Annexure P5) has stayed the proceedings with regard to the second FIR. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Anil Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The offence alleged against the petitioner is triable by the Court of Magistrate. 5. 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 petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 6. 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. 7. Needless to mention 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 connection. 26.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge