IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 11463 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 31, 2011. Parhlad and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Jasmer Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.36 dated 20.02.2011, under Sections 365/323/148/149/452 IPC registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. CRM No.M-11463 of 2011 A coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 20.04.2011passed the following order:- “Contends that from a perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR, offence under Section 365 IPC is not made out. According to learned counsel, only simple injuries are alleged to have been caused in the occurrence. He submits that petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating agency. Notice of motion for 18.5.2011. Meanwhile, in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:- i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer 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 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 20.04.2011. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 2 CRM No.M-11463 of 2011 Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Parhlad, Raj Kumar, Kamal Puri, Satta, Kali, Neena, Vikram, Pala, Bittu and Lalu is accepted and order dated 20.04.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 31, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3