Cr.Misc. NO.M 31299 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO.M 31299 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION :2.2.2009 Rajinder Pal ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab ......RESPONDENT PRESENT: Mr. CL Verma, Advocate Ms. Rajni Gupta, DAG, Punjab Ms. MS Rakkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr. PS Batth, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Bhupinder Singh alleging that he is a co- sharer in a joint property measuring 155 kanals as per the jama bandi for the year 1990-91, situated in Village Jhingra. The petitioner is a Patwari and that in connivance with Lakha Singh he has got incorporated the name of Chuhar Singh and others in the revenue record taking the advantage of the absence of the complainant from the village and got a mutation sanctioned in favour of Avtar Singh and others. By the said mutation he has transferred the property measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas in his favour. Lakha Singh non petitioner has allegedly raised a loan by mortgaging the property to the tune of Rs.3.50 lacs from the Panjab and Sind Bank, Banga. Learned counsel for the complainant has put in appearance and opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that the petitioner Cr.Misc. NO.M 31299 of 2008 2 being a Patwari has made wrong entries in the revenue record causing loss to the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is admittedly working as a Patwari. He has made certain entries during the course of his official duties. The changes in the revenue record, if made contrary to the rules, can be got corrected by filing an application before the revenue authorities and any order passed by the revenue authorities is appealable under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. It is not apparent from the record whether the other remedies, available to the complainant or the aggrieved persons, have already been availed of. The petitioner having already joined the investigation, can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail especially when the affidavits Annexures P-3 and P-4 regarding some mutual exchange of the property amongst the co-sharers, have been placed on record, which are required to be scrutinized by the revenue authorities. It does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation as all the relevant record is available with the revenue authorities. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that he will appear before the investigating officer as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation at any stage. February 2 ,2008 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE