CRM-M No. 7553 of 2011 **** Ram Sharan Singh alias Rama vs. State of Punjab Present: Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohammad, DAG. Punjab. Mr.Premjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant. **** On 25.03.2011 the following order was passed:- “This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.18 dated 19.02.2011 registered under Sections 356, 406, 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot. On 16.03.2011 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel has argued that the case is a result of political vendetta and the person who is in possession of the register (Nachhattar Singh) is ready to deposit the same and that it was not snatched away as alleged but was given with the full consent of the members of the Gram Sabha. Notice of motion. Mr. Gazi Mohammad, DAG, Punjab, at the asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied a copy of the petition to the learned DAG today in Court itself. Adjourned to 25.03.2011.” At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner had handed over the register in question. Learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainant is present in the Court and the said register has been handed over to him who has verified that indeed this is the original register though it has to CRM-M No. 7553 of 2011 -2- be seen whether anything is missing or anything has been added therein. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter even while staying the arrest of the petitioner. Adjourned to 16.05.2011. In the meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed. The petitioner is directed to report the Investigating Officer on 05.04.2011 between 11 P.M. and 4 P.M., and later on as and when required.” Learned DAG, on instructions from SI Amarjeet Singh, has stated that the petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant has, however, vehemently opposed the application for bail by arguing that the petitioner has interfered with the democratic process and thus does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. In my considered opinion the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be required in such a case. In the event of the allegations against him being proved he would, of course, be liable for facing whatever punishment is meted out to him. Consequently this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner he is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE May 31, 2011 sunita