The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of the accusation, the need for custodial interrogation, and the presence of material justifying the apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral). - (The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.)

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C") for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.584 dated 03.11.2019 registered under Sections 429 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5, 13(1) and 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal.

3. While issuing notice of motion on 18.09.2020, this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner with direction to join the investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:-

"The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 584 dated 03.11.2019 registered under Sections 429 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5, 13(1) and 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR registered on statement of Harender, member of Gau Raksha Dal, Hodal. The petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged. Except disclosure statement of co-accused Subba there is no other evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner is not owner of the vehicle in question. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required for effecting any recovery.

Notice of motion.

Pursuant to supply of advance copy, Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

Learned State Counsel seeks time to file reply.

Adjourned to 04.11.2020.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail by the arresting officer/investigating officer on furnishing of bail bonds by him to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P. C failing which he shall not be entitled to the protection of interim bail allowed to him."

4. The petition has been opposed by the learned State

5. Counsel in terms of reply filed by Dinesh Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hodal, Palwal in the Registry which is taken on record.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel and have gone through the record.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, while reiterating submissions made on 18.09.2020, submitted that in compliance with order dated 18.09.2020, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that in view of gravity of accusation, the petitioner does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

9. However, learned State Counsel has, on instructions from Head Constable Sandeep, acknowledged that in compliance with order dated 18.09.2020 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation and that his custodial interrogation in the present case is not required for effecting any recovery.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation against the petitioner, the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the case and there is no material to justify the apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice or tempering with evidence or criminally intimidating the prosecution witnesses but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the grant of anticipatory bail.

11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and order dated 18.09.2020 granting interim bail to