IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-30404 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : November 17, 2009. Sukhbir Singh ...... Petitioner(s). Versus. State of Punjab ..... Respondent(s). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioner (s). Mr. A.S. Rai, A.A.G. Punjab, for respondent-State. Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate, for the complainant. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Counsel for the petitioner states that in compliance of the order dated 04.11.2009, passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He further states that the original affidavit, which is alleged to have been given by the complainant to the petitioner, has been handed over to the police. This fact is not disputed by counsel for respondent-State, on instructions from H.C. Tarsem Singh, Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana. He further states that, as of now, the petitioner is not required for further investigation. Counsel for the complainant vehemently argues that the affidavit, which has been given by the complainant, and is alleged to have been taken from her by force, clearly shows that how influential the CRM M-30404 of 2009 (O/M). petitioner is. He has relied upon the photographs taken from the Suvidha Centre in Close Circuit Television Camera, wherein he contends that there are, apart from the petitioner, five other people accompanying the petitioner, who were present and they forced the complainant to give this affidavit. He further contends that the petitioner was never a student of Sethi Study Circle, which is alleged in the present petition, although, the complainant was one of the student. Two certificates to that effect have been taken on record. He further contends that, apart from this, there are other F.I.Rs. registered against the father of the petitioner, who is a very influential person and, therefore, concession of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. His further contention is that grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage, would prejudice the investigation of the case. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A detailed order dated 04.11.2009, was passed by this Court, recording the contentions of counsel for the petitioner. On consideration of the same, notice of motion was issued with a direction to the petitioner to join the investigation. The investigating agency, which is the best judge with regard to the investigation, has come up and stated that the petitioner has joined the investigation and he is no more required. The assertion of counsel for the complainant that there were five other people accompanying the petitioner in the Close Circuit Television photograph footage may be correct, but the complainant is nowhere in the said C.C.T.V. photograph footage. The question with regard to the petitioner not being member of Sethi Study Circle is also a question of evidence, which has to be gone into at the time of trial or at the time when further investigation is conducted by -2- CRM M-30404 of 2009 (O/M). the police. There is no reason that the bail should not be confirmed, which has earlier been granted to the petitioner as he has already joined the investigation and the investigating agency does not want him for the said purpose. In view of the above, the order dated 04.11.2009 is confirmed. However, the petitioner shall be bound by the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE November 17, 2009. sjks. -3-