CRM No.M-33903 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-6.12.2010 Naresh son of Sohan Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.R.S.Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G., Haryana. Mr.S.K.Chauhan, Advocate for Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Naresh son of Sohan Lal, has applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other three co- accused, by virtue of FIR No.93 dated 4.7.2010 (Annexure P1), for the commission of offences punishable under sections 353, 447 and 448 read with section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Chhansa, District Faridabad, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Kalu Ram, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from him. 5. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner and his other co-accused CRM No.M-33903 of 2010 2 have illegally taken the possession of shamilat land. What is not disputed here is that a civil suit, pertaining to the land in question, is pending between the parties in the civil Court. The Gram Panchayat has also filed an ejectment petition under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (for short “the Act”) against the petitioner. Once the civil court/authorities under the Act are seized of the matter with regard to possession of the property in dispute, then such criminal proceedings can continue against the petitioner, will be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of his previous involvement in any criminal case. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described 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 present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) he 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) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to say that if the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection. 6.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge