Crl.M.No.M 33208 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M 33208 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 26, 2010 Sandeep Jindal and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rajinder Singh Arya, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the complainant. ...... 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.138, dated 18.4.2009, registered under Sections 420/406 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. A coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order on 11.12.2009: “ Mr.Cheema contends that the entire dispute, which is subject matter of the FIR is in fact civil in nature. He has referred to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Annexure P2), according to which signatures of two of the petitioners do not tally with their original signatures. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners are Crl.M.No.M 33208 of 2009 (O&M) -2- required for custodial interrogation. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the petitioners shall join the investigation forthwith. However, in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions: i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer 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 shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. To come up on 15.1.2010.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well, on instructions from Ramphal ASI, that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. Rather it has been argued by learned State counsel that it has come during investigation that no case is made out against petitioner nos.2 to 4. However, bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant so far as petitioner no.1-Sandeep Jindal is concerned. I have considered all the facts of the case. Petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no more required for custodial interrogation by the State. There are no Crl.M.No.M 33208 of 2009 (O&M) -3- allegations on behalf of the State that 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, order dated 11.12.2009, granting interim bail to petitioners- Sandeep Jindal, Sanjeev Jindal, Sudhir Jindal and Mahabir Parshad Jindal is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 26.3.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge