IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-21203 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 01.12.2009 Atul Kumar and another ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Pawan Singh, AAG, Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail. Vide order dated 5.8.2009, interim bail was granted to the petitioners and their arrest was stayed by this Court subject to the condition that they shall comply with the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case came up for hearing on 11.9.2009. Counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners have joined investigation on 12.8.2009. Counsel for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation. He states that 25.9.2009 and 26.9.2009 were fixed as the dates for appearance of the petitioners before the Investigating Officer on the request made by the counsel for the petitioners and the case was adjourned to 30.10.2009 for further consideration. On 30.10.2009 the case was again adjourned to 9.11.2009. On the said date, counsel for the petitioners had made a statement that the petitioners have joined investigation on 25.9.2009 and 26.9.2009. This fact was disputed by the counsel for the Crl.Misc.No.M-21203 of 2009 -2- State on instructions from the Investigating Officer i.e. ASI Ishwar Singh, Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. On this, counsel for the petitioners had sought time to file an affidavit of the petitioners in support of the contention that the petitioners had indeed joined investigation on 25.9.2009 and 26.9.2009. The case was adjourned to 23.11.2009 on which date, counsel for the petitioners sought last opportunity to file the affidavit of the petitioners, as prayed for by him on 9.11.2009 and accordingly, the case was adjourned to 1.12.2009 i.e. today. Today, counsel for the petitioners states that the affidavits of the petitioners are not available with him. He contends that the prosecuting Agency and the complainant are conniving with each other and are harassing the petitioners unnecessarily. He contends that petitioner No.1 has recently taken up an appointment in a Japanese firm at Bombay and he is not being relieved to join investigation. He contends that the Investigating Officer may be directed to formulate a questionaire which could be sent to the petitioners so that they can respond to the same. He contends that due to the difficulty being faced by petitioners as petitioner No.1 has taken up a new assignment and since he is not being relieved by his employer, he is unable to join investigation. He prays for extension of the interim bail granted by this Court. I have heard counsel for the petitioners. The details of the above-said order indicates the proceedings that have taken place before this Court. Order dated 11.9.2009 clearly indicates that the counsel for the petitioners had sought 25.9.2009 and 26.9.2009 as the dates on which the petitioners were to make themselves available for the purpose of investigation before the Investigating Officer. As is apparent, the Crl.Misc.No.M-21203 of 2009 -3- petitioners did not join investigation in spite of their counsel having made a request for grant of adjournments as per convenience of the petitioners. This is apparent for the reason that the petitioners despite having availed of two opportunities to file an affidavit in support of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners that they had joined investigation on 25.9.2009 and 26.9.2009, no affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in Court today. Instead of complying with the statement which was taken to be correct by this Court and would, therefore, be an undertaking before the Court to join investigation on 25.9.2009 and 26.9.2009, now the counsel for the petitioners has taken up the stand that a questionaire is required from the Investigating Officer so that the petitioners can respond to the same. From the above, it is crystal clear that the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation and are not submitting to the requirements of law. The undertakings given by the petitioners have not been fulfilled by them. At this stage, reference to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula dated 5.5.2009 vide which the pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners was rejected, would be beneficial. Same was the position before the trial Court where despite having been granted interim bail the petitioners failed to appear before the investigating Agency thereby leading to the dismissal of their bail application. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case especially the conduct of the petitioners, no further indulgence can be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. December 01, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE