Crl. Misc. No.M-31039 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: December 07, 2011. (1) Crl. Misc. No.M-31039 of 2011. Amrik Singh and others .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * (2) Crl. Misc. No.M-31771 of 2011. Balwinder Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh, for the petitioners in both the petitions. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, DAG., Punjab. M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). This order will dispose of the above noted two petitions i.e., Crl. Misc. No.M-31039 of 2011 filed by Amrik Singh, Narinder Kumar and Surinder Singh and Crl. Misc. No.M-31771 of . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-31039 of 2011 2011, filed by Balwinder Singh, for the grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.55 dated 31.05.2011 under Sections 447, 427, 379, 148 & 149 IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab. The said FIR was registered at the instance of Sham Sunder, nephew of power of attorney holder of Krishnawati complainant alleging that Ram Parkash the original owner died in the year 2003 and the mutation was entered in the name of complainant who was owner in possession of 7 kanals of land as occupancy tenant died in the year 2003. The complainant Krishnawati came into possession of the said land. The petitioners along with others had entered into a conspiracy and trespassed in her land in her absence. She claims that her life has been made miserable by the petitioners and others. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, the land was purchased by Harbans Singh and Kehar Singh in the year 1996. The revenue record was corrected on an application filed by Harbans Singh in the year 2008 vide Annexure P2, dated 21.1.2009. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, DAG., Punjab, on the instructions of SI Kewal Singh informs that though the petitioners have joined investigation but it is a case where recovery of the stolen tubewell motor and pipes is yet to be effected. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the State counsel and carefully considered the contents of the . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-31039 of 2011 FIR. The allegations of theft are absolutely vague and it does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation. The locus standi of the complainant and the rights of alleged purchasers Harbans Singh and Kehar Singh would be debatable points to be determined during trial. The petitioners have joined investigation. They can be granted the concession of bail. Both the petitions are allowed. 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 following conditions: - (i) That the petitioners will join the investigation as and when required by the police; (ii) That the petitioners will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner; and (iii) That the petitioners will not commit the similar offence of which they are accused of during the pendency of trial. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 07, 2011. rka . . . 3