IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-32980 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 08, 2010 Paramjit Singh & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. K.D.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.130 dated 26.10.2009 under Sections 326 (added later on), 323, 324, 506, 379, 34 IPC registered with Police Station Mehtapur, District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is an alarming case of high handedness at the instance of Dilbag Singh, who is uncle of the complainant. Petitioner No.1 instituted a civil suit in regard to possession Crl. Misc. No. M-32980 of 2009 [2] of land. Status-quo was granted by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar on 6.8.2009. On 7.8.2009 itself, FIR bearing No.94 under Sections 447, 506 IPC was registered with Police Station Mehtapur, District Jalandhar against the petitioners for tress-passing of the same land. It has been contended that in the face of status-quo order, FIR could not have been lodged. Be that as it may, exercising influence, within a week challan was filed against the petitioners on 13.8.2009. On 17.8.2009, petitioner No.1 moved an application for initiating contempt proceedings against Dilbag Singh and Station House Officer, Police Station Mehtapur. Notice has been issued to the said persons. The Punjab State Human Rights Commission has also taken cognizance of the atrocities. The petitioners challenged the FIR vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-26820 of 2009. Further proceedings in consequence of FIR No.94 dated 7.8.2009 under Sections 447, 506 IPC registered with Police Station Mehtapur have been stayed vide Order dated 23.9.2009. Despite the above circumstances, the present FIR has been lodged. Crl. Misc. No. M-32980 of 2009 [3] Learned counsel contends that the petitioners were allowed interim relief vide Order dated 26.11.2009. The petitioners made themselves available for joining investigation and undertake to join investigation as and when required. Learned counsel for the respondent- State says that Investigating Officer is not available. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances that have been noticed above, Order dated 26.11.2009 is hereby made absolute. The petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:- “(i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required; (ii) The petitioners 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) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” This order shall enure till 15 days after the filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Crl. Misc. No. M-32980 of 2009 [4] within which period, the petitioners shall be required to seek regular bail. (AJAI LAMBA) January 08, 2010 JUDGE avin