Cr.Misc. M 28954 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 28954 OF 2010 Date of decision:23.11.2010 Harnam Singh Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Pb Mr. GS Verma, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of Nirmal Kaur u/s 376/380/506 IPC alleging that complainant is a tenant on first floor and ground floor of the house belonging to petitioner. The complainant alleges that the petitioner had developed physical relations with her on the pretext of taking her abroad and the petitioner had stolen the articles from her house. There is a dispute between land lord and tenant as is apparent from a suit for injunction filed by complainant Nirmal Kaur against the petitioner in the court of Civil Judge , Ludhiana. The complainant seems to have levelled allegations of petitioner having taken loan of ` 1.20 lacs from her and not returned the same; he having taken money to send the complainant abroad, thus, cheating her; he having committed theft of the house hold articles besides hurling threats to her. All the possible allegations have been levelled by the complainant against the petitioner on account of a dispute existing between landlord and tenant. The conduct of the tenant gives an indication that with an objective to pressurize the Cr.Misc. M 28954 OF 2010 2 petitioner not to alienate his property to any one and to retain the possession, the petitioner is being involved in the criminal cases. A photograph, indicating that a plaque has been affixed on the house with a declaration that the house is a disputed property on account of pending litigation between the tenant and the landlord and that no one should purchase it, has been produced. The same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioner has committed all the possible wrongs with the complainant, as such, pre-arrest bail should be declined. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that prima facie the allegations of rape having been committed by a 69 years old person with his tenant, who is grand father of a girl aged 22 years and who is residing with him, is false. It is apparent that the petitioner had been residing with his son in USA and has returned to India in the year 2004. Prima facie it appears that in order to settle other scores, the allegation of rape has been levelled by complainant Nirmal Kaur. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 30.9.2010 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. November 23 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE