LAXMI NARAIAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arrest of the petitioner had been stayed subject to his joining investigation. Since then the petitioner had joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the State had vehemently argued that in this case, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner should not be confirmed as custodial interrogation is necessary in the present case. On being asked by this Court, the learned counsel has stated that no further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The case basically hinges on documentary evidence. However, since the conspiracy has been going on for a very long period of time, it is necessary to interrogate the petitioner with regard to the other loans that he may have sanctioned.

(2.) I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel. Since most of the evidence against the petitioner is documentary, it would be wholly inappropriate to send the petitioner into custody for the purpose of interrogation. The police authorities are at liberty to adopt all lawful means to interrogate the petitioner. For that purpose, it is not necessary to send the petitioner into custody.

(3.) In view of the above, anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.