CRM No.M 27237 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 27237 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.12.2010 Sandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Ms.Puja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Sandeep Singh under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.248 dated 30.9.2009 registered under Sections 380, 323, 34 IPC at Police Station Division No.5,Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 20.9.2010, passed the following order:- “CRM No.48618 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRM No.27237 of 2010 Contends that recovery of stolen printer has CRM No.M 27237 of 2010 2 already been effected from the co-accused. Further contends that no injury has been attributed to petitioner-accused. Further contends that compromise was also entered into between the petitioner and the complainant and however, later on complainant resiled from the compromise. Further contends that co-accused are already on bail in this case. Further contends that co-accused Harmanjit Singh Malhi has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.M.No.M 31526 of 2009 and case of the present petitioner is similar to him. Notice of motion for 12.12.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 20.9.2010. Further contends that as per FIR, printer was taken away from the complainant by Pushinder Singh @ Pushi co-accused, who has already been arrested and released on regular bail. Further contends that similarly situated co-accused Harmanjit Singh Malhi has already granted concession of anticipatory bail by this court. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail of the petitioner on CRM No.M 27237 of 2010 3 the plea that printer of the complainant has not been recovered from the co- accused so far. Hence, in view of the fact that as per FIR, printer was taken away by co-accused Pushpinder Singh @ Pushi and similarly situated co- accused Harmanjit Singh Malhi has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail petition filed on behalf of petitioner Sandeep Singh is accepted and order dated 20.9.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. December 2, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE