CRM No. M 16106 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 16106 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.08.2010 Chetan Behl ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R S Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Swarn Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. B P Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondent/complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This Court while granting interim bail vide order dated 27.05.2010, recorded as under:- “It is contended that the complainant is the owner of Khasra Nos. 368 and 369. The present petitioner has admittedly nothing to do with the aforesaid khasra numbers. He is neither in the possession nor he is claiming right over the said khasra numbers. The only dispute left is qua khasra nos. 400 and 401 which do not belong to the complainant. With respect to these two khasra numbers, no criminal CRM No. M 16106 of 2010 2 complaint has been filed by the government. The Government is already in civil litigation with the petitioner qua khasra Nos. 400 and 401. Although, status quo earlier granted in favour of the petitioner has been vacated, the fact remains that the petitioner is claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession since year 1959.”. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant while rebutting the contention of the petitioner has placed on record certain documents as R-1 to R-11, alleging that the same show that the petitioner is in possession of khasra Nos. 368 and 369. Without going into the facts of the case lest it may affect either side suffice it to note that the respondent/complainant has admittedly not filed any eviction petition against the present petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant prayed that the demarcation should be done to ascertain the truth. The respondent/complainant has liberty to avail of such remedy in accordance with law. The same cannot be the basis or subject matter of anticipatory bail. Mr. K S Pannu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from ASI-Satnam Singh, states that the petitioner has since joined the investigation. In view of the above, the order dated 27.05.2010 is made absolute. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 19, 2010 mohan