CRM No.M-31347 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-25.11.2010 Rajanpreet Singh alias Raja alias Rajandeep Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh alias Pappu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Rajeev K.Kapila, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Rajanpreet Singh alias Raja alias Rajandeep Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh alias Pappu, has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, by virtue of FIR No.62 dated 18.6.2010 for commission of the offences punishable under sections 363, 366-A and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 4. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Bhupinder Singh, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from him. 5. What is not disputed here is that petitioner has already solemnized CRM No.M-31347 of 2010 2 the marriage with Sandeep Kaur, daughter of complainant Harbans Singh and they are residing as husband and wife. Whether the penal provisions of sections 363 and 366-A IPC are attracted in these circumstances, will be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 6. So, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner and alleged victim Sandeep Kaur are living peacefully as husband and wife and totality of other 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, to me, no useful purpose would be served in sending him (petitioner) in police custody and he is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant 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. 8. Needless to say that if the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, then the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection. 25.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge