THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: December , 2009 1. CRM-M No. 33810 of 2009 Rajat Yadav ...... Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration and another ...... Respondents 2. CRM-M No. 33811 of 2009 Sanjeev Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr.P.K.Khindria, Advocate Standing Counsel for UT Chandigarh. **** Ajay Tewari, J. The aforesaid two petitions have been filed for grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.135 dated 2.6.2009, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh. Since they both have arisen out of the same FIR, they are being disposed of by a common order The allegations are that some person masqueraded as one Hari Singh Sandhu opened an account in ICICI bank, Sector 35, Chandigarh for the express purpose of misappropriating money belonging to the aforesaid Hari Singh Sandhu. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that under the current guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India the petitioner(s) accepted the identity of the applicant. Further contends that even though that unknown person did make an attempt to misappropriate the money belonging to the aforesaid Hari Singh Sandhu yet due to good fortune the same could not succeed as the attempt was discovered before it could be given effect to. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner(s) have repeatedly joined the investigation and that the co-accused has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court in CRM-M No. 25005 of 2009 by order dated 30.11.2009. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has, on instructions from SI Chiranji Lal, confirmed the fact of the petitioner(s) having joined the investigation as also the fact of their co-acused having been granted bail. In these circumstances in my considered opinion it would hardly be of any avail to have custodial interrogation of the petitioner(s). Consequently it is directed that in the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner(s) they are ordered to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. A copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 03, 2009 sunita