Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.@mdashPrayer in this petition, filed u/s 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to Parshan Singh, son of Lachhman Singh, resident of Village Bashesharpur, Post Office, Lambra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable u/s 420, IPC, in FIR No. 144, dated 1.10.2012, registered at Police Station, City, Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
2. Learned counsel contends that it is the second petition before this Court seeking the same relief; the earlier petition bearing CRM-M-10201-2014, was withdrawn for the purpose of filing fresh application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala; and that thereafter fresh application for grant of anticipatory bail was presented before the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.4.2014 (Annexure P-2). He further contends that Baljit Singh, a similar situate co-accused of the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2012 passed in CRM-M-34020 of 2012. It has also been contended that concededly the amount was paid to Sukhjit Singh, a co-accused of the petitioner, whose petition for grant of anticipatory bail has already been declined by this Court. It has also been contended that even if the whole case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, then also it will reveal that a dispute of civil nature has been given the colour of a criminal case.
3. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Baldev Singh of Police Station, City, Phagwara, very fairly concedes that the disputed amount was paid to Sukhjit Singh, a co-accused of the petitioner. However, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that in his (petitioner) presence the amount was paid by the complainant to Sukhjit Singh and, therefore, the petitioner had a common intention to commit the offence.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
5. Concededly, the amount was not paid to the petitioner. In what capacity the petitioner was present at the time when the amount was paid by the complainant to his (petitioner) co-accused, Sukhjit Singh, would be decided during course of trial.
6. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the issue that a similar situate co-accused, Baljit Singh, has already been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2012, therefore, the same benefit can be extended to the petitioner as well. Resultantly, the present petition is accepted. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
7. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down u/s 438(2), Cr.P.C.
