CRM Nos.29345 & 31323 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-29345 of 2010 Salinder son of Kewal Krishan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-31323 of 2010 Pushpender alias Anuj son of Kewal Krishan ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Date of Decision:-1.11.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G., Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved in the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC., petitioners Salinder and Pushpender alias Anuj sons of Kewal Krishan, have instituted the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused Ashu, vide FIR No.536 dated 10.9.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 325, 452 and 506 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station City Thanesar, Distt.Kurukshetra. 3. Notice of the petitions was issued to the State. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this context. CRM Nos.29345 & 31323 of 2010 2 5. What is not disputed here is that all the offences alleged against the petitioners except the offence punishable under section 452 IPC are bailable. Whether the penal provisions of section 452 IPC as such are attracted to the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial of the case. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Pritam Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. All the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 6. Therefore, 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 petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they 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) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 1.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge