Criminal Misc. No. M-17630 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-17630 of 2010 Date of decision : 22.07.2010 Jaspreet Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate for the complainant. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 44 dated 10.06.2010 under Sections 420/406/34 IPC at Police Station Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,99,000/- out of total amount due. He submits that in view of this no offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that while granting interim bail to the petitioner vide order dated 23.06.2010, a condition was imposed on him that he shall cooperate with the investigating agency and shall deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the account of the complainant before being released on bail. He submits that neither the petitioner has joined the investigation nor deposited the amount of Rs. Criminal Misc. No. M-17630 of 2010 2 50,000/- as directed by this court vide said order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that while granting interim bail to the petitioner, this court had directed that he shall deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the account of the complainant. Even an undertaking was given by learned counsel for the petitioner to this effect as a pre-condition for anticipatory bail. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with this condition. According to stand now taken by learned counsel that Rs. 50,000/- had already been deposited by the petitioner. This contention in my considered view is totally mis- conceived as perusal of order granting interim bail clearly shows that ad- interim anticipatory bail was granted subject to condition of deposit Rs. 50,000/- in account of the complainant. Since the petitioner has not complied with the said condition, there is no ground to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. July 22, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE