CRM No. M-37432 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-37432 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.03.2011 Jaspal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Jag Nahar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.113 dated 30.9.2009 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Anti Power Theft, PSPCL, Patiala. This Court on 21.12.2010 has passed the following order: - “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and the petitioner was not the owner of “J.K. Real Estate” and one Shiv Rattan-Mohan Lal is owner of the said premises and demand notice with regard to penalty of an amount of Rs.1,20,069/- has wrongly been issued to the petitioner. Notice of motion for 10th March, 2011. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., which are as under: - i) that the petitioner shall make himself CRM No. M-37432 of 2010 -2- available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that the petitioner 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) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on the instructions of ASI Jagmohan Singh, Investigating Officer, who is personally present in the Court, states that petitioner has not joined the investigation and has not reported to the Investigating Officer as yet. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since no recovery was to be made from the petitioner, hence petitioner did not join the investigation. In the opinion of this Court, since petitioner has violated the conditions of order dated 21.12.2010 and has failed to join the investigation, despite of call by the Investigating Officer, he is not entitled for the pre arrest bail. Interim bail granted vide order dated 21.12.2010 is hereby cancelled. Petition is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 10, 2011 R.S.