IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-11766 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 31, 2011. Mukul Saini. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta., D.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.8 dated 24.01.2011 under Sections 326/323/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.1 Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. CRM No.M-11766 of 2011 A coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 02.05.2011 passed the following order:- “Prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioner Mukul Saini in case FIR No.08 dated 24.01.2011 under Sections 326, 323, 34 IPC, P.S. Division No.1, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. As per allegations in the FIR lodged by the injured- complainant Ajay Salaria the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted a sword blow on his left shoulder whereas the co- accused are alleged to have inflicted a fist blow on his nose and right side of the forehead. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations in the FIR the occurrence is of 09.12.2010 whereas the MLR is of 10.12.2010 after a delay of 24 hours and the statement before the police has been recorded after a delay of 24 days i.e. on 02.01.2011. He further submits that even as per the MLR the alleged three injuries have been opined to be simple in nature and further having been sustained within one hour of the examination thus rendering the version to be false. Learned State Counsel on instructions from SI Prabhjeet Singh submits that the petitioners are yet to join investigation. He however, is unable to explain at this stage with regard to imposition of Section 326 IPC. Adjourned to 25.05.2011. In view of above, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer. He shall join the investigation as and when required by the police and abide by all the conditions as envisaged under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 02.05.2011. 2 CRM No.M-11766 of 2011 It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Mukul Saini is accepted and order dated 02.05.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 31, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3