IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. 3163 of 2010 Date of decision: 31 .3.2010 Madan Mohan ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.R.N.Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. **** ORDER The present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail. On 15.2.2010, the following order was passed “ The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 391 dated 29.12.2008 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. On 3.2.2010, notice of motion as well as notice regarding stay was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter in dispute is purely of civil nature and the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the land in dispute which was purchased vide sale deed dated 19.7.1989 from one Sher Singh and possession was also given. That very land was further sold to Satish Gehlot and he also died. The petitioner purchased this land under the bona fide belief that Sher Singh was owner in possession of that land and no objection by other co-sharers was ever raised during a long period and now with the rise of prices Crl.Misc. No. 3163 of 2010 [2] the objection has been raised and the present FIR has been registered after a gap of more than 12 years. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has not joined the investigation and is ready to join the investigation. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Meanwhile arrest of the petitioner is stayed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1989 from Sher Singh who has also expired and later-on this land was sold by the petitioner to the complainant in the year 1996 and the present FIR was registered after a gap of more than 12 years. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 15.2.2010, the petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for further investigation. Mr.Mor, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has sold the land beyond his share and recovery is yet to be effected from him. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court by Mr.Mor on instructions from ASI Satyawan that the land is in possession of the complainant. Since the petitioner has joined the investigation and the land is also in possession of the complainant, there is no question of any loss to the complainant as this land was purchased by the petitioner from Sher Singh Crl.Misc. No. 3163 of 2010 [3] who has expired and that land has further been sold to the complainant. Accordingly, the interim directions issued on 15.2.2010 are made absolute. However, the petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 31, 2010. raghav