IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33860, 34272, 34503 of 2009 and 19327, 18645, 8367, 18451, 20162 and 24542 of 2010 Date of decision: March 09, 2011. Sukhram Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner v. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Shri Gautam Dutt, Advocate Shri Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate Shri Pankaj Bali, Advocate Shri Vishal Sharma, Advocate Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.K. Sanghi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): By this common order, eight Crl. Misc. petitions, preferred by Sukhram Singh, Ashwani Kumar, Vivek Bansal, Sheenam Goel, Munish Goel, Raj Kumar, Nitin Gupta and Ishu Sharma shall be decided together. All the petitioners have been named as accused in case FIR No.213 dated 5.9.2009 registered at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. Pre-arrest bail to the petitioners was granted by the Cognate Bench on 1.12.2009, 4.12.2009, 7.12.2009, 12.8.2010, 8.7.2010, 12.8.2010, 12.8.2010 and 12.11.2010 respectively. Shri N.K. Sanghi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from SI Shamsher Singh, states that in the impugned FIR, 8 persons have already been arrested and after conclusion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted. He further states that the petitioners have joined the investigation and investigation qua them shall conclude within one month and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. shall Crl. Misc. No.M-33860 of 2009 -2- be submitted on or before 18.4.2011. He also states that the petitioners are not handing over certain documents. However, he has fairly admitted that no notice calling upon the accused to hand over the documents has been issued. He submits that within one week, notices shall be issued to the accused to hand over the documents which the investigating agency requires. Counsel for the petitioners submit that co-accused of the petitioners have been arrested and granted regular bail by this Court. Shri Sanghi controverts this and states that only those accused have been granted regular bail from whom no document was to be recovered. After hearing Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are on interim bail for about one year and investigation has concluded qua the accused who are stated to be in custody. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that in case notices are served upon the accused to furnish the documents, they, in compliance thereof, shall furnish the documents which are in their possession. Counsel for the parties further agree that the petitioners should be dealt with like similarly situated co- accused who have been granted regular bail. In these circumstances, the present applications are disposed of by observing that the petitioners, on submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be decided by the trial court on merits after hearing Counsel for the parties. Needless to say that the State will be well within its right to urge that adverse inference be drawn against those accused who had failed to furnish the requisite documents, equally, petitioners may justify before the trial court non-furnishing of documents sought. Till the regular bail applications of the petitioners are decided, interim relief granted in their favour shall remain in vogue. Disposed of. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] March 09, 2011. Judge kadyan