IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8832 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 23, 2011 Anil Kumar alias Toni …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 80 dated 27.10.2010, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City-1 Malerkotla, District Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, while deciding the first anticipatory bail application i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-37772 of 2010, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, had made wrong statement that custodial CRM M-8832 of 2011 interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the stolen items. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, stolen items have already been recovered from the possession of the petitioner vide Annexure P/2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, learned PP had made a statement that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to know as to from where the petitioner had purchased parts of the stolen vehicle, while before this Court custodial interrogation was sought for the recovery of the stolen items. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. When Deputy Advocate General, appeared before me on 05.01.2011, he has stated that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and also stolen items are yet to be recovered, meaning thereby, custodial interrogation was sought not to recover stolen items but to know the other facts also, therefore, there is no subsequent event entertaining second anticipatory bail application. Dismissed. March 23, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2