CRM No. M-36168 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-36168 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.03.2011 Amandeep Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.246 dated 12.11.2010 under Sections 379/451/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Shimla Puri, District Ludhiana. This Court vide order dated 9.12.2010 has directed to release the petitioners on interim bail. Tenant/complainant has made criminal complaint against the owners/co-accused as well as against the petitioners stating therein that the owners along with petitioners came on the tenanted property and thrashed the tenant/complainant and after loading engine parts in Tata 907 ran away from the spot. It was also alleged in the complaint that accused and the owners of the property have thrown engine parts out of the hall. CRM No. M-36168 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/tenant states that complainant is not in possession of the disputed property and he has been thrown out on the day of incident and forceful possession has been taken from the complainant by the petitioners as well as owners of the property and they have taken away items available in the shop. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that had complainant/tenant been forcefully evicted, he would have filed civil suit for recovery of possession, which he has not done, so it itself shows that civil dispute has been given colour of criminal offence and concocted story has been cooked up to implicate the landlord and the petitioners. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on the instructions of ASI Som Nath, states that petitioners have joined the investigation pursuant to order dated 9.12.2010. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Order dated 9.12.2010 is made absolute, subject to the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, it is clarified that petitioners shall keep on co-operating in the investigation and if they fail to do so, Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to get the bail cancelled. (Alok Singh) Judge March 08, 2011 R.S.