CRM-M No.10588 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRM-M No.10588 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.04.2011 Prem Chand and others ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondents. 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. Raghuvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the State. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, on the instructions of SI Azad Singh has stated that petitioner No.1 was arrested and had already been enlarged on regular bail. On the statement of learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition on behalf of petitioner No.1. CRM-M No.10588 of 2011 2 Dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner No.1. Learned counsel states that custodial interrogation of petitioners No.2 and 3 is totally unjustified and they will joint investigation as and whey they are required to do so. He further states that tendency of involving all the family members cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for petitioners No.2 and 3 has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal), 126 and has argued that irrational and indiscriminate arrests are in gross violation of human rights. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioners No.2 and 3 shall join investigation within ten days from today. On joining, petitioners No.2 and 3 shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on furnishing their personal bonds and one surety of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions provided under Section 438(2) of the Code: (i) that petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer and when required; (ii) that petitioner 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, (iii) That petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Petitioners No.2 and 3 shall keeping on participating in the CRM-M No.10588 of 2011 3 investigation as and when they are required to do so. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 27.04.2011 sk.