In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 20472 of 2011 Decided on Aug 24,2011 Jaspal Singh and another --Petitioners vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Rai,DAG,Punjab. Mr. Kuldip Singh., Divisional Conservation Officer (respondent No.2 in person). Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is a petition for pre arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 27 dated 08.3.2011, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, at Police Station Kotbhai, District Muktsar. Allegation against the petitioners is that they have damaged the pipe-line and have stolen one pipe by loading in their tractor trolley. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact, Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh, who happens to be the brothers of the petitioners had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the co- villagers in which they have been granted temporary injunction of status- quo by the Civil Court on 09.2.2011. Thereafter, the pipelines were laid by the Department of Soil and Water Conservation on 02.3.2011. In view thereof, the petitioners had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CRM-M- 20472 of 2011 -2- the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,'CPC') on 05.3.2011 and on 07.3.2011, the occurrence took place, as a result of which, the present FIR was registered on 08.3.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 is a Constable and petitioner No.2 is working as a Mate in the Canal Department who have nothing to do with the occurrence, whereas learned counsel for the State/respondent has submitted that the petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR by many persons of the village, who had given the information that they were instrumental in causing damage to the property which had ultimately been stolen by them. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the learned Court below has recorded that the petitioners have been threatening even the Investigating Officer, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and hence this petition is hereby dismissed. August 24,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge