CRM No.M-24711 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.10.2010 Palwinder Singh alias Tinda and Davinder Singh ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Avtar S.Khinda, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, petitioners Palwinder Singh alias Tinda son of Joginder Singh and Davinder Singh son of Balwinder Singh, have instituted the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case, registered against them alongwith their other main co-accused, Harjinder Singh and three others, vide FIR No.44 dated 28.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with section 149 IPC by the Police of Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that the petitioners were stated to have caused one simple injury each on the non vital parts of complainant Gurjit Singh. They did not repeat the injuries. No other overt act is attributed to them. The main injury, subject matter of offence punishable under section 326 IPC, is attributed to main accused Harjinder Singh, who is not petitioner before me. CRM No.M-24711 of 2010 2 5. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Narender Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The offences, alleged against the petitioners, are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed 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, the present petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency 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 will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to state that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge