CRM No.M-27109 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-15.10.2010 Kesho Ram son of Bhagwan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Sandeep Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioner Kesho Ram s/o Bhagwan, has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely Guddu and Bablu, vide FIR No.38 dated 26.6.2010 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 380 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station M.D.C. Panchkula, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition is liable to be accepted in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner is stated to have only committed the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 IPC. All the offences alleged against him are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Whether the penal provisions of section 506 IPC are attracted from the facts and in the CRM No.M-27109 of 2010 2 circumstances of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. 5. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Krishan Kumar, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) he 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 and (iii) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection. 9. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 15.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge