CRM -M No. 12302 of 2011 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRM -M No. 12302 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2011 Vijay Mehta and others ..... Petitioners vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anmol Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. J. S. Bedi, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who have been summoned to face trial on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 39 dated 12.6.2007, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 302, 120-B IPC at Police Station Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners were noticed:- “It is, inter alia, contended that there arose a dispute between the proprietors of the village Jathlana and the persons in occupation of the joint- holdings of the proprietors. The petitioners were the Sarpanch and the Member Panchayat of Village Jathlana at that time. One Dile Ram was also in possession of the Panchayat land and he died allegedly due to heart attack. As per the allegations, the petitioners were standing/ present at the place of occurrence at some distance in a car and were watching the fight. It is urged that the petitioners were found innocent during the course CRM -M No. 12302 of 2011 (2) of the investigation but have now been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial. It is further urged that the accused who are specifically named in the FIR have already been granted the concession of bail. On this premise, it is urged that no purpose would be served by incarcerating the petitioners.” Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the accused had only carried out their official duties by auctioning the land which was earlier in possession of the complainant party. In fact, they were aggressor as in the civil suit filed by them, they could not prove their possession on the land. As even prior to the incident in question, their application for interim stay was rejected. The land was allotted to the successful bidder in the auction conducted in May 2007. As per the FIR, the only allegation against the petitioners was that they were watching the incident while sitting in a car at a distance. It is only sought to be alleged by the complainant that on their instigation the accused party had attacked the complainant. He further submitted that in terms of order dated 5.5.2011, the petitioners have already put in appearance before the court below and submitted their bail bonds. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant submitted that after the summoning of the petitioners in the case, even the charges have been framed. It shows that they are accused of heinous crime. The complainant was consistent in his statements as given in the FIR, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also in the court. Considering the role attributed to the petitioners, they do not deserve concession of pre- arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made by them especially that the only allegation against the petitioners is that they were watching the incident while sitting in a car at a distance and further that it is only sought to be alleged by the complainant that the incident had taken place on the instigation of the petitioners whereas the case set up by the petitioners is that whatever they had done in auctioning the panchayat land was in discharge of their official duties; the CRM -M No. 12302 of 2011 (3) complainant party, in fact, wanted to retain the possession of the land illegally; they had even failed in civil litigation, in my opinion, interim bail granted to the petitioners on 5.5.2011 deserves to be made absolute. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands disposed of. 18.11.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge