CRM No.M-27780 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 25.10.2010 Kuldev Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Sarjeet Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Sessions Judge, petitioners Kuldev Singh, Amarjit Singh, Sonia, Janak Raj, Bablu, Tarlok Singh, Nand Lal and Babbu, have filed the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.126 dated 27.8.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 147, 379, 447 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Pathankot, Distt.Gurdaspur, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that complainant Parminder Singh son of Fauja Singh, claiming himself to be the owner of the land in question measuring 4 acres, in which, he was stated to have planted orchard, lodged the FIR, inter-alia, on the ground that on 20.4.2009, he came to know that the petitioners-accused, claiming themselves to be owners of the land in dispute, sold the branches of “Mulberry” (Toot) trees and reaped his wheat crop without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone CRM No.M-27780 of 2010 2 through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. The learned counsel has contended with some amount of vehemence that the petitioners are owners and in possession of the land in dispute. The father of the complainant was stated to have become the owner of the land on the basis of forged and fabricated sale deed executed by one Sangeeta Devi in favour of Swaran Singh without any legal right. The petitioners have already challenged the validity of the sale deed in a civil suit. When they came to know about the civil suit, then Fauja Singh, father of the complainant, has illegally purchased the same during the pendency of the suit. He is neither legal owner nor in actual possession of the disputed land. 6. What is not disputed here is that a civil suit between the parties is already pending. The dispute appears to be of a civil nature. All the offences, alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Whether the offences under section 379 IPC etc. are attracted to the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court during the course of trial. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Balbir Singh, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, to me, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for CRM No.M-27780 of 2010 3 interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 9. Needless to state that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 25.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge