Criminal Misc. No. M-32365 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Misc. No. M-32365 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.2.2009 Deepak Kumar alias Happy …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-32367 of 2008 Bhupinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. Nos. Criminal Misc. No. M-32365 of 2008 2 M- 32365 of 2008 titled as “Deepak Kumar alias Happy v. State of Punjab” and M- 32367 of 2008 titled as “Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab” shall be decided together. In Criminal Misc. No. M-32365 of 2008, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had noticed the following contentions of counsel for the petitioner in order dated 9.12.2008 and had ordered that petitioners be released on interim bail:- “This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in cross case registered under DDR No. 16 dated 2.8.2008 under Sections 452, 323, 34 IPC in FIR No. 579 dated 2.8.2008 lodged for offences under Section(s) 457, 448, 511, 380 IPC with Police Station, Kotwali, Bathinda. Learned counsel has pointed out that FIR was lodged at the instance of the petitioner side for theft. The petitioner is a tenant under Parama Devi, mother of Rajdeep Goyal. Rajdeep Goyal and his mother wanted the shop to be vacated. Initially an offence was committed whereupon FIR was lodged at the instance of the petitioner. In counter blast thereto, cross case has been filed in which the petitioner apprehends arrest. On merits, learned counsel has pointed out that the alleged injured were not even medico legally examined. No injury has been received by any person.” Criminal Misc. No. M-32365 of 2008 3 Counsel for the State submits that the petitioners have joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required. In view of the statement made by counsel for the State and order dated 9.12.2008 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners is affirmed till filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. petitioners shall furnish regular bail-bonds to the Court concerned. With these observations, both the petitions are disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 12, 2009 “DK”