Criminal Misc.No. M- 23621 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M- 23621 of 2010 Date of decision:- 13.9.2010 Tarsem Singh @ Sema ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl.A.G. Punjab. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.86 dated 03.7.2010, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 23.8.2010, passed the following order:- “This petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.86 dated 3.7.2010, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Ghal Khurd, District Ferozepur, has been filed by the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the allegations against the petitioner, are to the effect that he, and his wife, did not return the amount of Rs.84,000/-, which they had obtained from the complainant, in a chit- Criminal Misc.No. M- 23621 of 2010 -2- fund committee. He has further submitted that, he has not cheated the complainant, and as such the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not fulfilled, from the allegations, contained in the FIR. He has further submitted that, it is a case of civil dispute. Notice of motion for 13.9.2010. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail, on his furnishing bail bonds, in the adequate sum, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and subject to the compliance of provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has joined the investigation in pursuance of the said order. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent- State that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 23.8.2010, granting interim bail to the petitioner-Tarsem Singh @ Sema is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 13, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE