CRM-M No. 25965 of 2011 **** Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and another CRM-M No. 31035 of 2011 Nazar Singh v. State of Haryana CRM-M No. 30752 of 2011 Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana CRM-M No. 34803 of 2011 Boor Singh v. State of Haryana Present: Mr.Amit Singla, Advocate Mr. K.K.Goel, Advocate Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate and Mr. H.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate for complainant Boor Singh in CRM-M No. 34803 of 2011. **** This order shall dispose of three petitions for regular bail bearing CRM-M Nos. 25965, 30752 and 34803 of 2011 and one for anticipatory bail bearing No.31035 of 2011 having arisen out of the same FIR. The broad brush allegations against the petitioner(s) are that they conspired with an impostor to purchase the land belonging to the complainant. On 15.11.2011 learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M No. 25965 of 2011 had made the following assertion:- “Counsel for the petitioners has stated that apart from the merits of the case, the petitioners have no objection in returning the land of the complainant subject to the condition that they be given their status of tenants at will.” CRM-M No. 25965 of 2011 -2- CRM-M No. 31035 of 2011 CRM-M No. 30752 of 2011 and CRM-M No. 34803 of 2011 Thereafter another application for bail bearing CRM-M No. 34803 of 2011 was filed on behalf of the person who sold the land. Application for bail bearing No.CRM-M 30752 of 2011 was filed on behalf of the person who was merely an attesting witness. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case has argued that as of now there is evidence to show that even the complainant is an impostor. As per learned counsel there is also a civil suit pending in which all these persons are parties. He has argued that he would have no objection if the offer made by the petitioners in CRM-M No. 25965 of 2011 (supra) is accepted but it must be made clear that this would be without prejudice to the right of these petitioner(s) to show either that they are the owner of the land or that even the complainant is an impostor in which case, as per learned counsel, the land should be given to the Government. Learned counsel for the complainant has no objection to this course of action. He has also no objection to considering the petitioners of CRM-M No. 25965 as tenants at will. He also undertakes on behalf of the complainant, who is present in Court, that the land will not be alienated in any manner during the pendency of the civil proceedings. The third petition bearing CRM-M No. 31035 of 2011 which has been filed is for anticipatory bail and has been filed by the Lambardar who identified the seller. Mr. Goel has argued that his client identified him on the basis of various papers of identity. In this view of the matter all these petitions are allowed. Petitioners in CRM-M No. 25965 have undertaken that without prejudice to their claims in civil suit they would have no objection if the property is mutated again in the name of the complainant. CRM-M No. 25965 of 2011 -3- CRM-M No. 31035 of 2011 CRM-M No. 30752 of 2011 and CRM-M No. 34803 of 2011 The other undertakings/statements reproduced above will also be binding. Consequently the petitioners in CRM-M No.25965, 30752 and 34803 of 2011 shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. As far as the petitioner in CRM-M No. 31035 of 2011 is concerned, the same is also allowed. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail by the investigating officer to his satisfaction subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE November 25, 2011 sunita