IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 25157 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 26, 2010. Shankutla and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.264 dated 14.06.2010 under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 30.08.2010 passed the following order:- “Heard. CRM No.M-25157 of 2010 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the parents of the husband, who had been residing separately and that the recovery of the dowry articles has already been effected from the husband. Notice of motion for 26.10.2010. In the meanwhile, in the case of arrest of the petitioners, in the FIR mentioned in the petition, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:- i) They shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; ii) They shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and iii) They shall not leave the limits of this Country without prior permission of the Court.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 30.08.2010. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Shankutla and Jagdish is accepted and order dated 30.08.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 2 CRM No.M-25157 of 2010 The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 26, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3