CRM-M No.9741 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRM-M No.9741 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.04.2011 TD Arora ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the State. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.197 dated 20.7.2006 under Sections 406/420/409/467/468/471 IPC, P.S. Hodal. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has himself recorded the shortage of wheat. He has further stated that petitioner CRM-M No.9741 of 2011 2 has inspected the site on 31.3.2006, therefore, petitioner cannot be said that he is involved in the shortage of the wheat. He has further stated that out of 29 accused, 27 have already been enlarged on bail. He has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal), 126 and argued that irrational and indiscriminate arrests must be avoided. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has vehemently argued that petitioner can also seek regular bail as the other accused have sought. On being asked as to whether custodial interrogation is required, if yes on what grounds ? Learned Assistant Advocate General even after seeking instructions and long discussion with Inspector Saffaruddin, Investigating Officer, is not able to illustrate sufficient grounds for the custodial interrogation. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on furnishing his personal bond and one surety each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the limitations provided under Section 438(2) of the Code, which are as under:- (i) that petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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, CRM-M No.9741 of 2011 3 (iii) That petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 26.04.2011 sk.