IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3885 of 2009 Date of decision: 21st March, 2009 Bahadur Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 2 dated 16.01.2009 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2)88 of PC Act and 168/ 120-B IPC. On 11th February, 2009, this Court had passed the following order: “Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was posted as Auction Recorder in Market Committee, Nabha, for the check period from 1.5.1998 to 31.12.2003. It is alleged that the petitioner had acquired disproportionate assets in excess of Rs.6,02,477/- from his known sources of income. Counsel further contends that the check period is more than six years old and there are documents with the petitioner to justify that he has an agricultural income to acquire the assets. The second allegation is that the petitioner was conducting business on behalf of his brother and wife. Counsel contends that it may be breach of service rules but constitute no criminal offence. Criminal Misc. No. M-3885 of 2009 Counsel further submits that third allegation that petitioner received money on behalf of firm Sandhu Traders and has misappropriated the same has been made due to fall of partnership between the partners of the firm. Issue notice of motion to learned Advocate General, Punjab, for 27.2.2009. State is called upon to justify as to how custodial interrogation is required? Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called for. Petitioner shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” Thereafter, Counsel for the State had stated that the petitioner had not joined the investigation. Therefore, on March 2, 2009, the case was adjourned for today and direction was issued to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on March 10, 2009. Investigating Officer is present in Court. He has stated that petitioner has joined investigation and he is no longer required for further custodial interrogation. In view of the statement made by the Investigating Officer, interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated February 11, 2009 is made absolute till submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan). Thereafter, petitioner will apply for regular bail, which shall be decided by the trial Court on merits. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 21, 2009 rps 2