Ashok Kumar vs State of Punjab

M.L. Koul, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Deputy Advocate General, for the State.

The case in short as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the petitioner has participated in the occurrence nor he has taken away any articles belonging to the complainant. In this regard he carried me through the first information report lodged with the police wherefrom it is found that there is no specific role to have been played by the petitioner in the commission of the crime. May as it is, he too might have been present among the people while the occurrence had taken place.

The argument advanced by the learned Deputy Advocate General, that subsequently in his statement the complainant has stated that Rs. 1910/ out of his salary and one wrist watch of Allwyn make was taken away by the accused does not find any recognition in the first information report which is a long written statement made by the complainant with the police at the time of initiation of the prosecution against the accused. The complainant is a literate person and saving the police department. It is not supposed from him that he would miss this important fact at the time the first information report was lodged with the police. Thus, this is a fit case where the anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Hence it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest be released on bail in the amount of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety and personal recognition bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall remain present with the police for the purpose of investigation for a week as and when called by the police for the said purpose. In case the petitioner does not comply with the causing of his appearance before the police, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail before the Sessions Judge, who shall be competent at that time to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner.