CRM No.M-26379 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 4.10.2010 Amarjit alias Ghudu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Avtar S.Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in this case. 2. It is not a matter of dispute that only simple injury is attributed to the petitioner. The main grievous injury is attributed to Jagdish alias Soma (petitioner No.2), whose application for anticipatory bail, has already been dismissed. 3. The learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Malkiat Singh, has stated that petitioner Amarjit alias Ghudu, has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The offences, alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Whether the provisions of vicarious liability under section 34 IPC are attracted to the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 4. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without CRM No.M-26379 of 2010 2 commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 5. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) he 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) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 6. Needless to say that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection. 4.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge