CRM No.M-31077 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.11.2010 Anttar Singh alias Attar Singh and Joni ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioners Anttar Singh alias Attar Singh son of Ajaib Singh and Joni son of Balbir Singh, have directed the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their ten other co- accused, vide FIR No.187 dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 324 and 452 read with section 149 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station City Barnala, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 3. While issuing notice of motion, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Darshan Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation, in pursuance of order of this Court and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. 4. What is not disputed here is that the injury, subject matter of section CRM No.M-31077 of 2010 2 307 IPC, is attributed to some unidentified person. The prosecution claimed that petitioner No.1 inflicted simple injury on the right hand of complainant Jagdev Singh, while no injury is attributed to petitioner No.2. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any criminal case. As even challan has not yet been presented, therefore, the conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. 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 petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 6. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they 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) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 7. Needless to state that if the petitioners do not cooperate during the investigation, then the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 18.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge