Crl.M.No.M-7729 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-7729 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 21, 2010 Vikram Khan .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Chaman Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG,Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in offence under Sections 406, 498-A, 342, 341, 323, and 34 IPC in cross case of FIR No.12, dated 31.1.2010, registered under Sections 365, 458, 323, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Ghagga District Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 16.3.2010, passed the following order: “Crl.M.No.13871 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M 7729 of 2010 Argues that FIR was lodged by brother of petitioner against family members of wife of petitioner for offences under Sections 365/458/323/148/149 IPC and that one of the accused in that FIR Alla Khan gave statement before the police on the basis of which present cross-version has been registered against the petitioner just to pressurise the petitioner and his Crl.M.No.M-7729 of 2010 (O&M) -2- brother. It is further contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation. Notice of motion for 21.4.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C..” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well, on instructions from Gurdev Singh, ASI, that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 16.3.2010, granting interim bail to petitioner-Vikram Khan, is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 21.4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge