IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. 33315 of 2009 Date of decision:- 09.3.2010 Randip Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. 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 petitioners in FIR No.102 dated 29.5.2008, under Sections 307,323,324,326,148 and 149 IPC and under Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station “C” Division, Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 27.11.2009, passed the following order:- “Crl.Misc.No.60081 of 2009 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc.No.M-33315 of 2009 There is an averment that parties have arrived at compromise. Notice of motion to the Advocate General, Punjab, 08.01.2010. In the meanwhile, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners by the arresting officer, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:- i) that they shall make themselves available Criminal Misc.No. 33315 of 2009 -2- for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) that they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have joined the investigation in pursuance of the said order. It has been further contended that moreover the matter has been compromised with the complainant. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent-State that the petitioners have joined the investigation and are no more required for any custodial interrogation. It has also been stated that a compromise deed has also been handed over by the complainant to the Investigating Officer. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are 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, the present petition for anticipatory bail is accepted and the order dated 27.11.2009, granting interim bail to the petitioners Randip Kumar Gill alias Rindhi, Balram @ Bammi and Rattan Lal @ Ratto, is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2)Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. March 09, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE