AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 219 wordsK.K. Srivastava, J.
Learned AAG contends that in pursuance of order dated 13.9.1995 passed by this Court, the petitioners have joined the investigations. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AAG on the main petition for anticipatory bail. A case F.I.R. No. 8 dated 11.3.1994 under Sections 409/467/468/471/201/120B IPC, Police Station Intelligence Bureau, Karnal has been registered against the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the participation of Raj Singh and Rishipal (both petitioners) has been found in this action. It has further been contended that there are no allegations of embezzlement against the petitioners as they have not been entrusted with the cash in the Cooperative Society. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed subject to the following conditions;
(i) In the event of the petitioners being arrested in this case, they shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the said officer;
(ii) The petitioners will continue to associate with the investigations of this case as and when called upon to do so;
(iii) They will not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Magistrate without obtaining permission of the said Court.