Crl. Misc. No. M-34404 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34404 of 2011 Date of Decision : 14th December, 2011 Harjeet Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Harjeet Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.87 dated 08.10.2011 under Sections 406, 420, 447, 511, 427, 506 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Rajpura, District Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, proprietors agreed to sell their land to Harbhajan Singh, who with the consent of proprietors agreed to sell the same further to the complainant and others, who paid Rs.1,25,00,000/- (rupees one crore twenty five lacs only) to Harbhajan Singh in the presence of Khewatdars. It is also the prosecution case that on 11.09.2011, accused Nos.3 to14 including the petitioner as accused No.14 demolished boundary wall of the complainant while armed with deadly weapons and threatened to kill the complainant. Crl. Misc. No. M-34404 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 contended that petitioner is the main force behind the entire problem being son of one of the proprietors. However, in the FIR which is detailed one, drafted with legal advice, no such allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. In the FIR, the only allegation against petitioner is regarding occurrence dated 11.09.2011. For the same, offences under Sections 447 read with Section 511, Section 427 and Section 506 IPC are made out. Except offence under Section 506 IPC, the other offences are bailable. As regards offence under Section 506 IPC, it may be mentioned that accused Nos.3 to 14 were allegedly armed with deadly weapons but except extending empty threats did not cause any physical harm to the complainant or anybody else. In view of the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the instant petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner, shall be released on bail, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions specified in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when required by the police. Presently the petitioner is directed to join the investigation on 23.12.2011 at 10.00am and continue to do so as and when required by the police. 14th December, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) 'raj' JUDGE