Cr.Misc. M 31462 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 31462 of 2009 Date of decision:- 5.2.2010 Raj Kumar petitioner vs State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate. Mr.Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Pb Mr. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of bail in a case, registered at the instance of Chander Mohan alleging that he is a tenant in the house, belonged to the petitioner. There is a dispute regarding the possession of the house, as such the complainant had obtained a stay against forcible eviction. The date of hearing in the said case was 9.11.2009. The complainant had received summons from the office of SDM Mohali for appearance for 20.10.2009 pertaining to some dispute between the land lord and tenant. The allegation of the complainant is that about 10/12 people had forcibly dispossessed him from the tenanted house and taken forcible possession after breaking open the lock. It is undisputed that the petitioner is working as a gunman with SDM, Mohali. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence and that it is a land lord tenant dispute, in which the land lord has been falsely implicated in the case. Cr.Misc. M 31462 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the complainant has sought intervention to inform the court that restoration of the possession has been ordered by the civil court but to contradict the same, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that a civil revision petition has filed against the said order and the operation of the order stands stayed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the police file, I am of the opinion that it is a case of patently high handedness where the petitioner, being the gun man of a Govt. official, has misused his connections and prima facie dispossessed the complainant.I have also seen the notice issued by the SDM, Mohali requiring the complainant to appear in a complaint. It is apparent that all out efforts have been made to harass the complainant. It is a glaring example where the complainant has been forcibly evicted from the house by violating the principles of rule and law. The rule of law must prevail in civilized society. No ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. Dismissed. Any thing observed in the order is only meant for adjudication of the instant petition for pre-arrest bail and will not prejudice the rights of the parties in civil or criminal proceedings. February 5 ,2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE