CRM-M No. 37329 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRM-M No. 37329 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.02.2011 Hem Raj and another ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. T.K. Mukherjee, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the complainant. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). This is second application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.184 dated 6.8.2010 under Sections 498-A/406/506 IPC, P.S. NIT, Faridabad. Petitioners – accused are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant Padmawati @ Kirti. Undisputedly, husband of the petitioner has already been arrested and thereafter, was enlarged on bail. Investigation CRM-M No. 37329 of 2010 2 is still in progress. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioners shall participate in the investigation as and when they are required to do so. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a recent judgement in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mherte Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal), 126 has held that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to exceptional cases; irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. The Apex Court has further held that ordinarily anticipatory bail should be granted unless a sound case is made to refuse the bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the complainant has not received any bodily injury and petitioners being in- laws, have been falsely implicated. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana as well as Mr. Sushil Jain, learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently argued that to effect recovery of “Istridhan”, custodial interrogation of petitioners is required. As per learned counsel for the petitioners “Istridhan” cannot be equated with weapons of offence to be recovered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. For the alleged recovery of alleged “Istridhan”, custodial interrogation of petitioners seems to be totally unjustified, irrational and in violation of human rights. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners, they shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer on furnishing their personal bonds and two surety CRM-M No. 37329 of 2010 3 bonds each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer, subject to the limitations provided under Section 438(2) of the Code. Petitioners – accused shall participate in the investigation as and when they are required. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 08.02.2011 sk.