CRM No.M-32911 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.11.2010 Jaspal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Harkeerat Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, petitioners Jaspal Singh son of Bant Singh and Gurinderpal Singh son of Kuldeep Singh, have instituted the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused, namely, Charanjit Singh, by virtue of FIR No.217 dated 25.9.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Sahnewal, Distt.Ludhiana. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. 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 behalf. 4. While issuing notice of motion, vide order dated 10.11.2010, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Parveen Randev, has stated 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. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that no specific role or overt act for the CRM No.M-32911 of 2010 2 commission of the indicated offences is attributed to the petitioners. The prosecution claimed that they accompanied the main accused when the money was paid to him (main accused) by the complainant. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of their previous involvement in any criminal case. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as depicted 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. 7. 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. 8. Needless to mention that if the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, then the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant context. 17.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge