Crl.Misc.No.M-5620 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: April 06, 2010. (1) Crl.Misc.No.M-5620 of 2010 (O&M). Harinder Singh .. Petitioner * * * (2) Crl.Misc.No.M-7862 of 2010 (O&M). Amandeep Singh .. Petitioner * * * (3) Crl.Misc.No.M-7891 of 2010 (O&M). Gurjeet Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the petitioners in all the above stated three petitions. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG., Haryana. Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the complainants. . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-5620 of 2010 (O&M) M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of the above noted three petitions for pre-arrest bail, one filed by Harinder Singh, other filed by Amandeep Singh and third filed by Gurjeet Singh. The facts have been taken in the matter of Amandeep Singh's petition in view of the similar allegations against the three petitioners. The petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registerred at the instance of complainant Surinder Singh and Baljinder Singh alleging that the complainant had purchased 52 kanals 17 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 18.12.2003, but the petitioners have taken advantage of the absence of any mutation having been entered regarding the sale and mortgaged the land with State Bank of India and vide another mortgage deed with Punjab National Bank with an oblique motive to defeat the rights of the complainant. The allegations of cheating have been levelled against the petitioners. Petitioners claim that the land sold to the complainant is a joint land which has not been partitioned as yet and that the loan has been taken against 3 acres of land out of 12 acres exclusively are in possession of the petitioner Amandeep Singh whereas one acre of mortgaged land forms part of khasra numbers sold to the complainants. It has also been informed that a civil suit has been filed by the complainants challenging the mortgage deed dated 29.07.2008. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners does not have any intention to defeat the ownership rights of the complainant and that necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the property rights of the complainant are not defeated. It is also informed that the written statement has not been filed as yet. . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-5620 of 2010 (O&M) I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the complainant besides hearing the State counsel. In view of the assurance given by the petitioners that necessary steps will be taken to ensure that no charge is created against the specific portion of the property in possession of the complainant, it does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation. The petitioners have already joined the investigation and no recoveries are to be effected. The petitions are allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions: - That the petitioners will join the investigation as and when required by the police; That the petitioners will ensure in further proceedings that ownership rights of the complainant are not prejudiced in any manner; That the petitioners will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner; and That the petitioners will not commit any similar offence of which they are accused of during pendency of the petitions. In case any charge has been created, the petitioners will take steps to get the land in possession of the complainant released from any encumbrances. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 06, 2010. rka . . . 3