Cr.Misc. M 30167 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 30167 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Malkiyat Singh Petitioner vs. State of Haryana Respondent Present: Mr. JS Saneta, Advocate Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Hry Mr. BS Dhull, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Neeraj Devgan alleging that she had purchased a plot measuring 233 sq. yds in pipli from Amar singh. Said Amar Singh had purchased the said plot from Prem Lata, who had earlier got the said plot purchased from Kartar Singh. Said Kartar Singh is brother of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has sold the same plot to Ravi Kumar on 8.7.2011 jeopardizing rights of the earlier purchaser Neeraj Devgan complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a co-sharer in 25 marls of land along with his brother had sold only 8 marlas of land within his share. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose thepetition for pre-arrest bail contending that the petitioner had mischievously filed a suit for permanent injunction against Bawa Ram and the complainant but subsequently withdrawn the said suit. Coies of the Cr.Misc. M 30167 of 2011 2 plaint and the order dated 22.7.2011 have been shown in the court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the police record, it appears that there is a dispute regarding the property, which has been sold by the petitioner to Ravi Kumar. The complainant being a earlier purchaser, claims to be in possession of the property. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is still in possession of the property. Whether the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of Ravi Kumar jeopardizing the rights of the complainant regarding the property, belonging to Kartar Singh, after the same having changed hands from Prem Lata and amar singh. The rights of the complainant are protected being in possession. The grievance, if any, can be raised by Ravi Kumar. The dispute appears to be civil in nature, to be settled by the revenue authorities or the civil court. The petitioner has joined the investigation and handed over the relevant documents. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 3.10.2011 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. November 23 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE