Crl.Misc No M-5515 of 2010 Swami Lal, Patwari Vs. State of Haryana and another PRESENT: Mr.J.S.Mehndiratrta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.Kartar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** The present petition has been filed on behalf of Swami Lal, Patwari for grant of anticipatory bail in criminal complaint No.592-1 of 2009 dated 23.9.2009 titled “Sona Ram Vs. Om Parkash and others” wherein the petitioner has been summoned by the trial Court to face trial under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC vide order dated 16.1.2010. While issuing notice of motion on 26.2.2010, the following order was passed: “ Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that co- accused have also approached this Court by way of filing Crl.Misc.No. M-5339 of 2010 wherein notice of motion has been issued for 1.4.2010. Notice of motion for 1.4.2010. To be heard with Crl.Misc.No. M-5339 of 2010. Interim order in the same terms as in Crl. Misc. No.M-5339 of 2010.” Crl.Misc No M-5515 of 2010 [2] In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 26.2.2010, the petitioner has joined the investigation and has furnished bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil suit filed by the complainant is also pending where dispute with regard to alleged Will is there. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail on the ground that there are serious allegations against the present petitioner and there was no delay in filing of the civil suit which was filed on 5.2.2009 whereas the complaint was filed on 23.9.2009. The counsel for the petitioner has made a written statement that the complaint was filed after a gap of more than 6-1/2 years. Without commenting on the merits of the case and since civil litigation with regard to alleged Will is pending before the civil Court and moreover the petitioner has joined the investigation, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. The interim directions issued on 26.2.1010 are made absolute. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) April 1, 2010 JUDGE raghav