CRM No.M-29929 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 1.11.2010 Prabir Kumar Mukherjee son of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC., petitioner Prabir Kumar Mukherjee son of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee, has instituted the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, vide FIR No.268 dated 23.5.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. 2. Concisely, according to the prosecution that on 20.1.2010, one Ashok Kumar was stated to have stolen an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the drawer of Bhagirath (deceased). He reported the matter to the concerned authorities. Ultimately, the matter was compromised. The prosecution claimed that Bhagirath committed suicide on 25.1.2010 and the present case was registered against the accused on 23.5.2010 i.e. after about four months of the occurrence, claiming that the petitioner-accused abetted the commission of the crime. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone CRM No.M-29929 of 2010 2 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 regard. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that Bhagirath committed suicide on 25.1.2010 and the present case was registered against the petitioner after the delay of four months. The matter, with regard to the stolen amount, had already been compromised between the parties. Whether under such circumstances, the penal provisions of section 306 IPC are attracted to the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial of the case. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Vijay Singh, has submitted 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. Therefore, taking into consideration the delay of four months in lodging the FIR and totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as indicated 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. CRM No.M-29929 of 2010 3 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 context. 1.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge