CRM No.M-13156 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 4.10.2010 Hanif and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G., Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioners Hanif, Mugna, Irshad, Irfan, Wahid, Jamaluddin and Shakeel Ahmed, have directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case, registered against them, vide FIR No.66 dated 21.3.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 325 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the Police of Police Station Nagina, Distt.Mewat, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. 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 deserves to be accepted in this context. 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Ajai Lamba J.), while issuing notice of motion, has passed the following order on 6.5.2010:- “This petition has been filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. For bail in case FIR No.66 dated 21.03.2010 under Sections 148/149/323/325/506 IPC, P.S.Nagina, District Mewat. Learned counsel contends that except offence under Section 506 IPC, all other offences are bailable. CRM No.M-13156 of 2010 2 Notice of motion for 24.08.2010. In the meantime, it is directed that till the next date of hearing in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on interim bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required; (ii)the petitioners 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)the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” 4. At the very outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ranjit Singh, has submitted that all the petitioners, except petitioner No.3, have joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The offences, alleged against the petitioners, are bailable except offence under section 506 IPC and are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Whether the penal provisions of section 506 IPC are attracted to the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 5. Be that as it may, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. 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 petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 6. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, CRM No.M-13156 of 2010 3 subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they 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) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 7. Needless to state that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 4.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge