CRM No.M-26363 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-2.12.2010 Surender son of Ramphal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.R.N.Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana. Mr.Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Surender son of Ramphal, has instituted the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Dhanraj and Dara, vide FIR No.74 dated 8.7.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), by the police of Police Station Rohrai, District Rewari, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Nand Lal, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from him. CRM No.M-26363 of 2010 2 5. What is not disputed here is that Dhanraj and Dara, to whom, the main allegations with regard to the commission of the offence punishable under section 3 of the Act are alleged, were found innocent during the course of investigation by the police. Under these circumstances, whether the above indicated offence is made out against the petitioner or not, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial of the case by the trial court. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. 6. Therefore, 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, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. 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. 8. 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. 2.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge