Cr.Misc. M 12817 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. ` Cr.Misc. M 12817 of 2010 Date of decision:15.7.2010 Dev Krishan Mayor Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. SanjayTangri, Advocate. Mr. PS Bajwa, Advocate. Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. This order will dispose of two connected petitions, one filed by Devi Krishan Mayor (Cr.Misc. M 12817 of 2010) and another filed by Bhupinder Singh and others (Cr.Misc. M 13657 of 2010). The petitioners apprehend arrest in a case, registered at the instance of complainant Varinder Singh alleging that Dev Krishan had sold two shops to petitioners Bhupinder Singh and others, whereas the complainant has become owner of the said shops by virtue of sale deed executed by Partap Krishan, brother of Dev Krishan through his general power of attorney Ashok Kumar. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that Dev Krishan and Partap Krishan, being brothers are co-owners of a number of shops, about 40 in number and out of these shops, two shops have been purchased by Bhupinder Singh and others claiming that the said shops had been in their actual physical possession as tenants since long under Dev Krishan. They claimed that Dev Krishan had sold these shops, having fallen in the share of Dev Krishan. Petitioners Bhupinder Singh and Cr.Misc. M 12817 of 2010 2 others claimed that the shops purchased by the complainant are different from the one in their possession. Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the complainant has been duped by Dev Krishan as well as by his brother Partap Krishan as the the complainant has been deprived of possession of the shops despite the fact that the complainant has purchased the shops. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has also filed an ejectment application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against petitioners Bhupinder Singh and others on the basis of acquisition of right of ownership, in the capacity as a landlord. Since the remedy available to the complainant to seek possession, on the basis of sale deed in his favour, has already been availed of, the controversy requires to be determined by the civil court or by the Rent Controller. The petitioners having joined the investigation, they can be granted the concession of pre- arrest bail as it does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation as neither any recovery is to be made nor any objective will be achieved by sending the petitioners behind bars. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioners will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. Nothing said in this order will prejudice the right of any of the parties in civil litigation. July 15 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE