IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl.Misc.No. M-6536 OF 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 21, 2010. Chabeg Singh and others. ...... PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT 2. Crl. Misc. No.9914 of 2010(O&M) Harbhajan Singh ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. B.S.Bedi, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR CRM No.M-6536 of 2010 No.42 dated 14.02.2010, under Sections 148/149/323/506/307/285/447 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that only one injury on thumb has been attributed to petitioner No.1 – Chabeg Singh; no injury has been attributed to petitioner No.2 – Hardeep Singh and petitioner No.3 has not been named in the FIR. It has been further contended that no injury has also been attributed to petitioner – accused, Harbhajan Singh and that only Lalkara has been attributed to him. It is further contended that even petitioner – accused, Chabeg Singh, has also received seven injuries. Bail applications have been opposed by learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that there is dispute regarding agricultural land between both the parties and that Civil Court had already decided the matter regarding possession in favour of the complainant party even upto High Court. The petitioners are attacking the complainant party in order to take forcible possession of the land in dispute. It is further contended that all the accused were armed with weapons. It is further contended that after getting the concession of interim bail from this Court, petitioners again tried to take forcible possession of the land in dispute regarding which another FIR No.128 dated 26.03.2010, Annexure P1 has been registered against the present petitioners and the co-accused. Hence, it is contended that petitioners misused the concession of interim bail and hence, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. It is further contended that one of the accused has not been named in FIR however, his name came in the 2 CRM No.M-6536 of 2010 statement of other witnesses. It is further contended that three persons received injuries including injuries on vital parts, at the hands of accused party including fire-arm injuries. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. The dispute between the parties is regarding possession of the land regarding which civil suit was filed by the complainant in which application for ad-interim injunction was filed, which was allowed in favour of the complainant by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Karnal vide order dated 10.02.2010. Against the said order accused party preferred appeal before learned Additional District Judge(FTC), Karnal and however, appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2010, Annexure P3. Against the said orders passed by both the courts, petitioners filed Civil Revision before this Court. However, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 2304 of 2010 and the order reads as under:- “This defendants’ revision is directed against the order dated February 26th, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karnal upholding the order dated February 10th, 2010 of Civil Judge(Junior Division), Karnal, whereby, application, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure alongwith the suit, was accepted restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the suit land is of Jumla Malkan and Digar Hissedaran Hasab Rasad Araji Bad Hatmai Gram Panchayat Nissing. The land was not in possession of the plaintiffs and as such, the application filed by them was wrongly accepted. 3. Against this, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon (i) an order dated March 31st, 2009 passed by 3 CRM No.M-6536 of 2010 Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Nissing, who after visiting the spot, held the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land and; (ii) the jamabandi for the year 1992-93, wherein, also possession of the plaintiffs have been shown over the suit land. 4. In view of this, learned counsel for the respondents contends that with this overwhelming evidence on record, it is prima-facie proved that the plaintiffs are in possession and defendants have nothing to do with the suit land so far as the possession is concerned. 5. During the course of arguments, a specific question was put to learned counsel for the petitioners whether there is any documentary evidence/revenue record in support of the contention that petitioners are in possession over the suit property. The answer was in negative. 6. Above being the position, no illegality or irregularity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the Courts below. The revision petition is dismissed.” There are specific allegations against the petitioners – accused that they were armed with weapons. They participated in the offence. Three persons were injured. The alleged injuries received by the petitioners and co- accused are simple one. The petitioners tried to take the law in their own hand and tried to take the forcible possession of the land in dispute, which is in possession of the complainant party. After the said occurrence, petitioners alongwith co-accused again tried to take forcible possession of the land in dispute and another FIR has also been registered against them. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant applications for bail filed by Chabeg Singh, Hardeep Singh, Mehal Singh and Harbhajan Singh are, 4 CRM No.M-6536 of 2010 hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit and orders dated 23.03.2010 and 05.04.2010 granting interim bail in favour of petitioners, stand vacated. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 21, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 5