Cr.Misc. M 11725 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 11725 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.4.2010 Mehar Singh Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and others Respondent Present: Mr. RS Ghuman, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents 2 to 4 u/s 438 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgar Sahib. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued this petition as if an appeal has been filed against an order of grant of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel has submitted that the Sessions Court has not correctly appreciated the facts and has wrongly granted the concession of pre-arrest bail to respondents 2 to 4. I have gone through the nature of the allegations, levelled by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner- complainant against respondents 2 to 4 is that he had entered into an agreement of sale with respondent no.2 regarding a house. Possession of some of the part of the house in question on the ground floor was handed over to him but the respondents 2 to 4 have committed theft of the articles of the petitioner- complainant and forcibly taken the possession. While granting the concession of pre-arrest bail to respondents 2 to 4, the trial court, after going through the pleadings in the civil suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated Cr.Misc. M 11725 of 2010 2 29.1.2003, has arrived at a conclusion that the matter is pending before the civil court and the rights of the parties are yet to be decided by the said court. On the basis of the pleadings and other circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has formed an opinion that prima facie possession of petitioner Mehar Singh is also not established. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this court, on the basis of the material, which is subject matter of the proceedings in the civil court that the petitioner had been delivered the actual physical possession. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the pleadings in the civil suit, wherein an alternative prayer is made by the petitioner in his suit for specific performance that he should be delivered possession, which makes his possession prima facie doubtful. No ground is made out for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents 2 to 4. Dismissed. However, it is observed that any thing said in this order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the civil suit, pending before the civil court. Nothing said in the order, passed by the Sessions Court, will also prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the civil suit. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that this petition is not maintainable u/s 439 (2) Cr.P.C The petitioner should have filed an application u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court. April 23 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE