In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-5460 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:22.4.2009 Mohd. Ishak .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case that has been registered for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Anoop Kataria. It has been alleged by the complainant that he and his brother had purchased one acre of land on 2.7.2007 in Village Siwadi, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar. He had gone to Farrukh Nagar Tehsil for the purpose of getting the mutation entered in respect of the land that had been purchased. The complainant met Shyam, Patwari (non-petitioner), who demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000/-. It was alleged by the complainant that without taking bribe Shyam, Patwari was not going to do his work. He did not want to give bribe. Therefore, it was prayed that the legal action be taken against Shyam, Patwari. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner, Cr. Misc. No.M-5460 of 2009 [2] who was working as Naib Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade sanctioned the mutation in the name of the complainant by ante-dating the same and showing it to have been sanctioned on 23.9.2008 i.e. before the registration of the FIR on 25.9.2008. According to the petitioner the allegations of sanctioning of mutation by ante-dating it are absolutely baseless and there was no occasion for him to sanction the mutation by ante- dating the same. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner sanctioned the mutation on 23.9.2008 which was a holiday in the State of Haryana. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner had ante-dated the mutation so as to help Shyam, Patwari. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the question whether mutation has been ante-dated or not is to be considered by the investigating agency during investigation or by the Court in case challan is filed against the petitioner, as the case may be. At this stage, this aspect is not to be gone into. It is not in dispute that in terms of the interim order passed by this Court the petitioner has joined the investigation. Therefore, it would be just and expedient to confirm the interim bail that has been granted. In the circumstances, the interim bail granted on 26.2.2009 is made absolute. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. April 22, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*