CRM No.M-28155 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-13.10.2010 Ajay Batra son of madan Mohan Batra ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Varun Tara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G.Punjab. 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 Ajay Batra s/o Madan Mohan Batra, has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.110 dated 24.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Ajnala, Distt.Amritsar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that accused Lalit Chawla submitted the bail, surety bonds and other documents at the time of grant of bail to him. The jamabandi and other documents produced by him at the time of giving surety in the Court were found to be fake. In the wake of complaint of JMIC Ajnala, the present case was registered against the accused. According to the prosecution that during the course of investigation, the documents alongwith bail and surety bonds submitted for grant of bail to the petitioner were also found to be fake. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone CRM No.M-28155 of 2010 2 through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, the present petition deserves to be allowed in this context. 5. As is evident from the record that the only allegation against the petitioner is that his surety produced false documents at the time of submitting the bail and surety bonds. That means, it was the surety, who was responsible for furnishing the fake documents. The petitioner, who was in judicial custody at the relevant time, cannot possibly be blamed in this respect. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Sarwan Singh, stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and all the documents have already been taken into possession by the police. He is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described 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 petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. 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. CRM No.M-28155 of 2010 3 8. 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. 9. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 13.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge