CRM-M-30680 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-30680 of 2011 Date of Decision:05.12.2011 Jasbir Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Arvind Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.457 dated 20.08.2011 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 452, 447 & 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. On 31.10.2011, following order was passed by this Court: “Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR has been registered by one Poonam Rani alleging therein that Sukhdev, who is the son of her husband’s maternal uncle, had purchased the house, in which she is living, in his own name though, the money was paid by her for the purpose of purchasing the same. He further submitted that after four years of the CRM-M-30680 of 2011 - 2 - sale, Sukhdev came alongwith the present petitioner and 50-60 other persons for the purpose of getting the said house vacated and in that process, they also looted some house hold articles and gold jewellery. It is submitted by him that FIR, on the face of it, is false because Sukhdev had filed one indemnity bond with the Municipal Council Shahbad on 14.7.2009 in which he had alleged that he is the owner of the said house and the said indemnity bond was not only witnessed by Ramesh Saini (complainant’s husband) but also by Poonam Saini (complainant). Learned State counsel prays for an adjournment to verify about the said indemnity bond. Adjourned to 05.12.2011. In the meantime, the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till then.” Learned counsel for the State has produced on record a report from the Municipal Council Thanesar, according to which the complainant Poonam Rani did not sign the indemnity bond. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a matter of evidence because the indemnity bond which is produced on record bears the signature of Poonam Rani. Besides, the statement of the complainant cannot be believed in so far as petitioner is concerned, who is not involved in purchasing the disputed property in his name as the said act is attributed to Sukhdev Singh. The allegation against him is only that he had accompanied said Sukhdev Singh on 14.8.2011 and 20.8.2011 for the purpose of getting possession of the property in dispute. He further referred to Annexure P-5 (compromise) in which the complainant has mentioned that Harvinder Singh Sandhu s/o Gurnam Singh resident of Village Chanarthal, P.O. Haripur, Tehsil Thanesar, CRM-M-30680 of 2011 - 3 - District Kurukshetra is not involved in this case because on 20.8.2011 he was just passing by and had stopped his car after seeing the quarrel in the house of the complainant. He submits that Sandhu has been named twice by the complainant on 14.8.2011 as well as on 20.8.2011 but there is no reference of his presence on 14.8.2011 in the document Annexure P-5. He further submits that the role of the petitioner is similar to that of Harvinder Singh Sandhu, who has already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide his order dated 25.8.2011 on the basis of document Annexure P-5. He further submits that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that household articles are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed and arrest of the petitioner is stayed subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer. He shall also abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and shall keep on joining investigation as and when required by the Police. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 05, 2011 JUDGE Vivek