CRM No.M-31345 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-22.11.2010 Vinod s/o Roshan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Vinod son of Roshan, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his two other co- accused, namely, Bhaga and Gora, by virtue of FIR No.186 dated 21.8.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 379, 430 and 506 IPC, by the police of Police Station Uklana, District Hisar, 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 context. 4. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Rohtash Singh, has submitted 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 the prosecution claimed that petitioner alongwith his two other co-accused was illegally irrigating their land from the canal water. It is not a matter of dispute that the two co-accused of the CRM No.M-31345 of 2010 2 petitioner were arrested and have already been allowed regular bail. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of his previous involvement in any such case. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the 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, the present petitioner 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 state that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection. 22.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge