CRM Nos.M-25782, 27108 & 28397 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-25782 of 2010 Satnam Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-27108 of 2010 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 3. CRM No.M-28397 of 2010 Sawinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Ms.Gursharan K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM No.M-25782 of 2010. Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM Nos.M-27108 and 28397 of 2010. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G.,Punjab. Mr.Sarbjit Singh, 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 CRM Nos.M-25782, 27108 & 28397 of 2010 2 to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. However, for facilitation, the facts have been extracted from CRM No.M-25782 of 2010. 2. Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, petitioners Satnam Singh s/o Lakhwinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh s/o Gurdip Singh, Kuldeep Singh s/o Anokh Singh, Balwinder Singh s/o Gurmej Singh and Sawinder Singh s/o Jagat Singh, have instituted the above mentioned three separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.119 dated 13.8.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar. 3. 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, the instant petitions deserve to be accepted in this regard. 4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order on 6.9.2010:- “Heard. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the main allegation against the petitioners in the FIR, is that they transferred the land fraudulently, which was owned by Gram Panchayat. She further submitted that in fact, vide the agreement, so mentioned in the FIR, only the possession of the land was delivered and it was never represented by the petitioners that they were the owners of the said land. Notice of motion for 28.10.2010. 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 CRM Nos.M-25782, 27108 & 28397 of 2010 3 Court.” 5. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Darshan Singh, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. 6. What is not disputed here is that the petitioners were stated to have executed the agreement (Annexure P2) for delivery of possession of land in question to the complainant. According to the prosecution that the petitioners did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the agreement. Be that as it may, the dispute appears to be of a civil nature and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. The offence 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. 7. Therefore, 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 in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application CRM Nos.M-25782, 27108 & 28397 of 2010 4 for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 10. The instant petitions are disposed of accordingly. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge