CRM No. M-3850 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-3850 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.05.2011 Buta Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate, and Mr. Naresh Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.746 dated 9.11.2010 under Sections 368/506/34 IPC, Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa. This Court vide order dated 5.4.2011 has directed to release the petitioners on interim bail. Mr. N.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has stated that petitioners have joined the investigation pursuant to direction dated 5.4.2011. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from ASI Raghubir Singh, who is personally present in Court, states that petitioners have joined the investigation. Charges have CRM No. M-3850 of 2011 (O&M) -2- already been framed against co-accused. He further states that custodial interrogation is not requested. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, counsel for the complainant, states that petitioners are facing other criminal cases, therefore, they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He has vehemently argued that police has not investigated the matter correctly. Investigating agency is not requesting for custodial interrogation. Petitioners are co-operating with the Investigating Officer. The question as to whether petitioners have got the sale deed executed by pressurizing the complainant and after keeping him in the wrongful confinement, is yet to be adjudicated by the trial Court. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 126, has ruled that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. Argument of learned Senior Advocate for the complainant that police is not investigating the case properly does not hold water. Complainant has not reported this to the higher authorities as yet. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Order dated 5.4.2011 is made absolute. (Alok Singh) Judge May 31, 2011 R.S.