CRM-M 8870 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 8870 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.04.2011 Krishan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) CRM No.18550 of 2011 For the reasons stated application is allowed. Documents are taken on record. CRM-M 8870 of 2011 This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.207 dated 4.12.2010 under Sections 419/420/466/468 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Pinjore. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has disbursed ten months' pension to Chanchal Singh while Chanchal Singh was not available in India and was abroad, that way petitioner has embezzled Government money by showing that payment of pension has been made to Chanchal CRM-M 8870 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Singh. Learned counsel further states that petitioner is already facing departmental inquiry and shall join the investigation and custodial interrogation is not required. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 126, learned counsel has argued that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. Considering total facts and circumstances of the case present petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on furnishing personal bond and one surety of Rs.20,000/- subject to the following conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code: - i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when he is required to do so. However, it is clarified that if petitioner does not join the investigation despite of the call by the investigating officer, prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail. (Alok Singh) Judge April 04, 2011 R.S.