CRM-M- No. 6886 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- No. 6886 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 18, 2011 Himanshu Mittal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** 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. T.S. Khaira, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.97 dated 17.12.2010, under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Khanauri, District Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending before the trial Court. He has further submitted that for the same transaction present FIR has been registered under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. He has further stated that keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in CRM-M- No. 6886 of 2011 (O&M) 2 “Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharastra and others, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 126, irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has stated that it is true that complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending against the petitioner. He has further submitted that at this stage custodial interrogation is not required. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. However, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and one surety of ` 20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions :- (i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 fro disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer ; (iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (Alok Singh) Judge May 18, 2011 Anand