Criminal Misc. No.M-4586 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-4586 of 2010 Date of decision:01.04.2010. Mangal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Misc. No.M-6353 of 2010 Harbans Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. O.P.Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S.Sra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present petitions were filed on behalf of the petitioners Mangal Singh, Amandeep Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Balwant Singh, Darshan Singh, Bakhshish Singh and Balbir Singh (in Crl. Misc. No.M-4586 of 2010), Harbans Singh, Mangal Singh, Major Singh, Surinderpal Singh, Harpreet Singh and Paramjit Singh (in Crl. Misc. No.M-6353 of 2010) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.3 dated 04.01.2010, under Sections 307, 440, 427, 336, 511, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur. While issuing notice of motion, the following order was Criminal Misc. No.M-4586 of 2010 -2- passed by this Court: - “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant was never in possession of the disputed land whereas petitioner No.1 – Mangal Singh and four other persons were in possession of the same. Learned counsel further contends that Gram Panchayat Ahmad Dhandi filed ejectment application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, which is still pending and due to previous litigation, the petitioners have falsely been implicated by the complainant. He also contends that moreover, no injuries were attributed to the petitioners and they were not armed with any fire arms. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 01.04.2010. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. They shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. They shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as under: - (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” Criminal Misc. No.M-4586 of 2010 -3- As per the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant was never in possession of the land in dispute and the proprietors of the village were in possession of the said land does not belong to Gram Panchayat. The land in dispute is `jumla mustarka malkan' and the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the State have brought to the notice of this Court that in Civil Writ Petition No.10844 of 2009 filed by the Gram Panchayat, notice of motion has been issued and proceedings before the Collector have been stayed and the case is now fixed for hearing on 08.04.2010. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that even in a civil suit for permanent injunction filed by the Gram Panchayat before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur with regard to the same land and between the same parties, the petitioners have been restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the complainant over the suit land and the suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioners has already been dismissed. Mr. Ganeriwala, counsel for the complainant has brought to the notice of this Court that FIR No.38 dated 29.04.2009, under Sections 379, 440, 447 IPC and FIR No.44 dated 25.04.2009, under Sections 440/447 IPC were registered against the petitioners at Police Station Mamdot on the complaints filed by District Development and Panchayat Officer. Learned counsel for the State Criminal Misc. No.M-4586 of 2010 -4- opposes the bail applications on the ground that all the accused were armed with deadly weapons, caused injuries to the complainant party, other cases of threat have also been registered against them and on the basis of incorrect statement ad interim directions were issued in favour of the petitioners and, thus, they do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. I have heard the arguments on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. Although the petitioners have joined investigation, but keeping in view the conduct of the petitioners, the allegations levelled in the FIR and the fact that the civil suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioners was dismissed and in the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat this Court has stayed the proceedings before the Collector, they are not entitled for concession of anticipatory bail. Accused numbering 19 armed with deadly weapons attacked the complainant party and the investigation has not been completed and recoveries of weapons used by the accused have not been made. They had ploughed the fields which do not belong to them. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offences and conduct of the petitioners, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The petition is dismissed accordingly. April 01, 2010 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) vinod* JUDGE