SAKRULLAH KHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner has since retired from service. Therefore, no record would be in the custody of the petitioner. Most of the evidence in this case would be in the form of documents. The witnesses also would no longer be under the control of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it would be unjustified to send the petitioner into custody. The co -accused, against whom similar allegations have been made, have already been granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) Arrest of the petitioner had been stayed vide order dated 4.9.2000 subject to the condition that he shall associate himself with the investigation. Since then the petitioner has been regularly joining the investigation.