CRM Nos.25050 & 25580 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-25050 of 2010 Bharpai and Goldi ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-25580 of 2010 Sudha and Bahadur Singh ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Date of Decision:-14.10.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G.Haryana. Mr.Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved in the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioners Bharpai, her husband Goldi, Sudha and her husband Bahadur Singh, have filed the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.397 dated 20.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Assandh, Distt.Karnal, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 3. Concisely, according to the prosecution, Dharam Pal (deceased) was the owner of the land in dispute. The petitioners are his daughters and sons-in-law. Complainant Ram Bhool, claiming himself to be adopted son of Dharam Pal, intends to inherit the property left by him. What is not disputed here is that there is CRM Nos.25050 & 25580 of 2010 2 no adoption deed in favour of the complainant. In the absence of adoption deed, Ram Bhool cannot possibly be said to be the adopted son of Dharam Pal. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner Bharpai and Sudha, daughters, are entitled to inherit the property of Dharam Pal, by virtue of natural succession. As per the FIR, earlier the Biradari Panchayat was convened and the matter was compromised. When the complainant failed to get any interest in the property of Dharam Pal in the Panchayat, then he appears to have filed the complaint, on the basis of which, the present FIR was registered. 4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order on 27.8.2010:- “Heard. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant Rambhool, was never adopted by Dharampal, deceased, as son and with the intention to grab his property, he got lodged false FIR against the petitioners. Notice of motion for 29.9.2010. In the meanwhile, in the case of arrest of the petitioners, in the FIR mentioned in the petition, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:- i) They shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; ii) They shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and iii) They shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court.” 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that the dispute appears to be purely of a civil nature, pertaining to the inheritance of the property of Dharam Pal. Whether any criminal offence is made out or not from the facts and in the circumstances of the case, will be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court. At the very outset, CRM Nos.25050 & 25580 of 2010 3 the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Krishan Kumar, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. The petitioners are daughters of Dharam Pal and their husbands. 7. So, 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, the present 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 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 mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. Sequelly, 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. 14.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge