CRM No.M-30334 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-23.11.2010 Avtar Singh minor son of Swaran Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Avtar Singh, claiming himself to be a minor son of Swaran Singh, has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other two co-accused, by virtue of FIR No.186 dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 307, 324 and 326 read with section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station City Ferozepur, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 4. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Tarsem Sharma, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from him. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that originally, a case was registered against the accused under section 324 read with section 34 IPC, in which, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail. Recovery of weapon of offence has already been effected from him. Subequently, offence punishable under section CRM No.M-30334 of 2010 2 326 IPC was added on 11.9.2010. Not only that, again offence punishable under section 307 IPC was added on 24.9.2010. The petitioner was allowed interim bail by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. As to whether the injury assigned to the petitioner falls within the ambit of section 307 IPC or not, would be the moot point to the decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described 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, to me, he is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. Sequelly, if the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant direction. 23.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge