CRM Nos.M-32858 & 33250 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-32858 of 2010 Vipin Kumar son of Amar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents 2. CRM No.M-33250 of 2010 Attar Singh son of Pyare Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents Date of Decision: 8.12.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G, Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for determination of grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the aforesaid petitions, arising out of the same FIR/case, vide this common order, in order to avoid the repetition of facts. 2. Petitioners Vipin Kumar son of Amar Singh and Attar Singh son of Pyare Lal, have instituted the above indicated two separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other four co- accused, vide FIR No.786 dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 342, 363, 366, 368, 376 (g), 506 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station City, Panipat, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the respondents. CRM Nos.M-32858 & 33250 of 2010 2 4. 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, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this respect. 5. At the very outset, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Rattan Singh, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from them. 6. What is not disputed here is that Reena, daughter of complainant Ramesh Kumar solemnized her marriage with petitioner Vipin Kumar against the wishes of her parents on 5.1.2009, vide marriage certificate (Annexure P1). The petitioner and Reena filed a protection petition in this Court (i.e. CRM No.M-601 of 2009). Consequently, the matter was referred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat for ascertaining the age of Reena. She, while appearing as AW2, stated before CJM that she was major and was of 20 years of age at the time of marriage. Her father solemnized two marriages. She performed the marriage with petitioner Vipin Kumar on 5.1.2009 at Chandigarh, vide marriage certificate (Annexure P1). In the wake of enquiry, the CJM concluded that Reena was major at the relevant time of alleged offence and at the time of marriage on 5.1.2009, vide report (Annexure P4) . Whether the penal provisions of indicated offences 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 by the trial Court. 7. 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. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the CRM Nos.M-32858 & 33250 of 2010 3 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. As per their undertakings by virtue of their respective affidavits, the petitioners will not indulge in such activities/crimes in any manner in future. 9. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, then the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 8.12.2010 Judge AS