Crl.Misc No M-5339 of 2010 Om Parkash and others Vs. Sona Ram and another PRESENT: Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Kartar Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. Mr.S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.2. *** The present petition has been filed on behalf of Om Parkash, Iqbal Chand and Des Raj for grant of anticipatory bail in criminal complaint No.592-1 of 2009 dated 23.9.2009/12.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) titled “Sona Ram Vs. Om Parkash and others” wherein the petitioners have been summoned by the trial Court to face trial under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC vide order dated 16.1.2010. While issuing notice of motion on 23.2.2010, the following order was passed: “ Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of complaint, which was filed after a gap of more than six and a half years. Learned counsel further contends that regarding the land in dispute, a civil suit is also pending between the parties. He also contends that the civil suit was filed on 5.2.2009, whereas the complaint was filed on 23.9.2009. Notice of motion to the respondents for 1.4.2010. Crl.Misc No M-5339 of 2010 [2] In the meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court and furnish their bail bonds and surety bonds to its satisfaction.” In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 23.2.2010, the petitioners have joined the investigation and have furnished their bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the civil suit filed by the complainant is also pending where dispute with regard to alleged Will is there. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail on the ground that there are serious allegations against the present petitioners and there was no delay in filing of the civil suit which was filed on 5.2.2009 whereas the complaint was filed on 23.9.2009. The counsel for the petitioners has made a written statement that the complaint was filed after a gap of more than 6-1/2 years. Without commenting on the merits of the case and since civil litigation with regard to alleged Will is pending before the civil Court and moreover the petitioners have joined the investigation, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars. The interim directions issued on 23.2.1010 are made absolute. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) April 1, 2010 JUDGE raghav