CRM No.M-32028 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.12.2010 Yoginder Singh son of Raj Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Siddharth Sarup, DAG Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Yoginder Singh son of Raj Singh, has applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.650 dated 23.9.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 409 IPC, by the police of Police Station City Jind, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 4. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. 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. Nothing is to be recovered from him. 5. What is not disputed here is that the present case was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of Superintendent, District Jail, Jind, with regard to the irregularity committed by him. No other overt act is attributed to him. CRM No.M-32028 of 2010 2 Whether the indicated irregularity committed by the petitioner, will constitute the offence punishable under section 409 IPC, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial court. Moreover, the offence alleged against the petitioner is triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of his previous involvement in any criminal case. 6. Therefore, 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, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant 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 nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. Sequelly, 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. 7.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge