Crl. Misc. No.M-30798 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-30798 of 2011. Date of decision: November 11, 2011. Sampuran Singh @ Bhoora .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Ms.Harpreet Kaur, Adv., for the petitioner. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr.Munish Dev, Advocate, for the complainant. M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Bhim Sain complainant alleging that he was approached by petitioner and others on 13.07.2011, at pistol point and his signatures were obtained on blank papers and he was deprived of his Car, ATM Card and Mobile phone. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to an agreement of sale Annexure P-2, indicating that the complainant had entered into an agreement of sale to sell the same property and received a sum of ` 12 lacs on 08.05.2011. It has been submitted that on earlier occasion also the petitioner had involved by the complainant in a similar case but he was granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to submit that the petitioner is habitual of committing the acts of assault upon the complainant and that recently the complainant has again filed a complainant on 17.10.2011 to the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Zirakpur, Mohali, informing that the petitioner had trespassed in his house along with 3-4 other persons and . . .1 Crl. Misc. No.M-30798 of 2011 attacked him. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the complainant as well as the State counsel, it is apparent that there had been money transactions on account of transfer of property. The petitioner has already joined investigation. Whether the petitioner has been involved on account of money transactions pursuant to Annexure P-2, will be a debatable point during trial. On the instructions of ASI Nasib Singh, State counsel informs that the petitioner has joined investigation but certain recoveries are yet to be effected. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I do not find any ground to refuse to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner on account of established enmity between the complainant and the petitioner on account of money transactions between them. The petition is allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to the conditions that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 11, 2011. rka . . .2