CRM-M 11112 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 11112 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.04.2011 Vijay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the complainant. 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) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.20 dated 29.3.2011 under Sections 406/420/182 IPC, Police Statio Lambra, District Jalandhar. This Court vide order dated 13.4.2011 has stayed the arrest of the petitioner with the direction to the petitioner to join the investigation. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from ASI Pritam Singh, who is personally present in the Court, states that petitioner has joined the investigation. Mr. R.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the bail application. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa CRM-M 11112 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 126, has held that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. Nothing is required to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, custodial interrogation seems to be unjustified. Considering total facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Let petitioner be released on bail on joining the investigation Arresting Officer/Investigating 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. It is made clear that in the event of violation of any of the conditions, prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail. (Alok Singh) Judge April 29, 2011 R.S.