Criminal Misc.-M No. 22822 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 22822 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2011 Roshan Lal and another .. Petitioners v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G. S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 273 dated 18.7.2011, registered under Sections 323/506/307/34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station, Civil Lines, Bhiwani. The FIR has been got registered by Jaswant Singh with the allegations that when he went to the residence of the petitioners to settle some dispute regarding money, he was attacked and threatened to be killed with a revolver. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a civil dispute, which has been given the colour of a criminal case. In fact, on 20.12.2006, in an auction held by HUDA, petitioner No. 1 and the complainant were the successful bidders for two booths bearing Nos. 103 and 104. As the complainant could not get the allotment in his favour being a government employee, the booths were got allotted in the name of Criminal Misc.-M No. 22822 of 2011 [2] petitioner No. 1. The complainant and petitioner No. 1 shared the cost in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively. Petitioner No. 1 paid ` 2,46,000/- and the complainant paid ` 7,38,000/-. The allotment letters were issued in the name of petitioner No. 1 on 5.2.2007. On the asking of the complainant later on, petitioner No. 1 got the booths transferred in the names of brothers-in-law of the complainant, namely, Raj Kumar and Vijay sons of Dharampal. Re-allotment letters were issued in favour of Raj Kumar and Vijay on 17.7.2007 and 19.10.2007, respectively. It was done in good faith. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 asked the complainant to get his name recorded with HUDA to the extent of 25%. The needful was not done. On the date of alleged occurrence also, as agreed before the panchayat, the complainant had come to the residence of the petitioners but the story projected by the complainant in the FIR is wrong as nothing such happened. Regarding the incident, petitioner No. 1 had, in fact, filed complaints to District Education Officer, Bhiwani and Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani prior to the registration of the FIR by the complainant. The allegation regarding threat with the revolver is not correct. Learned counsel for the State submitted that petitioner No. 1 was earlier involved in four cases, out of which in three cases he was acquitted and in one case he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. Petitioner No. 2 was also involved in other case, where he was acquitted. Recovery of revolver is yet to be effected. However, he admitted that the injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant are simple in nature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts stated by learned counsel for the petitioners where there was some dispute between the parties regarding purchase of booths initially in the name of petitioner No. 1 and transfer thereof in the names of brothers-in- law of the complainant later on and the injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant in the present case having been found to be simple in nature, the petitioners deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Let the petitioners join investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer on 19.8.2011 at 10.00 A.M. In case of arrest, the petitioners shall be Criminal Misc.-M No. 22822 of 2011 [3] released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.8.2011 mk