CRM-M No.9074 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRM-M No.9074 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.04.2011 Sanjeev Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. APS Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salan, DAG, Punjab for the State. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC were invoked against the petitioner stating that petitioner has evaded VAT by showing bogus purchase. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal), 126 has held that irrational and indiscriminate arrests must be avoided. In the opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation seems to be totally unjustified. CRM-M No.9074 of 2011 2 Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioner shall join investigation within 15 days from today. On joining investigation, petitioner shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on furnishing his personal bond and one surety of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the limitations provided under Section 438(2) of the Code, which are as under:- (i) that petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer and when required; (ii) that petitioner 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, (iii) That petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 06.04.2011 sk.