CRM No.M-30259 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.10.2010 Ranveer Singh son of Maidhan .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) Invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner Ranveer Singh son of Maidhan, has applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely Sajjan Singh, vide FIR No.198 dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station City Jind. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 4. While issuing notice of motion, this court directed the petitioner to join the investigation. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from EASI Ranbir Singh, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. What is not disputed here is that Sajjan Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, has CRM No.M-30259 of 2010 2 already been allowed regular bail by the Court of Session. As nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to anticipatory bail. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 5. 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 petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 6. 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. 7. Needless to state 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 connection. 29.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge