IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 10185 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.7.2010 Arjan Singh Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. HS Baath, Advocate Mr. Asbhishek Chautala, AAG, Pb Mr. VK Sandhir, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Cr.Misc. 34450 of 2010 for impleading the complainant as a party is allowed. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that it is unexpected that the sale deed registered in the year 1992 remained uneffected and was not incorporated in the revenue record by any mutation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has admittedly purchased the land in dispute from the grand father of the complainant on 20.1.1972. Copy of the sale deed has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. It will be debatable during trial whether non mentioning of the sale deed in the mutation entries, the said sale deed can be said to be a fabricated document. It is apparent that instead of year 1972, 1992 has been written in the mutation entry. The dispute regarding the property in dispute is pending before the civil court. The petitioner, being an old man of 81 years of age, has joined the investigation. It does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 6.4.2010 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. July 12 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE