Crl. Misc.-M. No. 23749 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.-M. No. 23749 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.11.2011 Mubeen Ahmed ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godaara, Additional A.G. Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J. On 22.09.2011, following contentions by the learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had agreed to sell the plot in question to the petitioner on 01.05.2003. The entire sale consideration was paid. The sale deed was got registered by the complainant in favour of the petitioner on 17.08.2010. As the complainant was interfering into the possession of the petitioner, a civil suit was filed on 29.10.2010, after the petitioner came to know that the complainant had sold the plot to one Ishu Vernma in 2008, who had further sold it to Nagma. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in fact, the father of the petitioner was mediator in the sale of Crl. Misc.-M. No. 23749 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the plot by the complainant to one Roshan Lal Verma, who got the sale deed registered in favour of his daughter Ishu Verma and also in subsequent sale transaction in favour of Nagma. In that process, some documents may have been got thumb marked from the complainant. He further submitted that two co-accused, namely, sons of the petitioner were arrested and in their disclosure statements, they stated that the agreement to sell has been fabricated by the petitioner.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already joined investigation. She has further submitted that before registration of the FIR in question, the petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction on 29.10.2010 in which the complainant was served and the matter in dispute was considered by the Civil Court on an application for interim injunction. After considering the pleas raised by the complainant, the Civil Court has granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 22.09.2011, which has been produced in Court. As civil litigation regarding dispute is pending before the Court below, the petitioner deserves concession of pre-arrest bail. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that the father of the petitioner was middle-man in the sale of the plot of the complainant to one Roshan Lal Verma in 2003. It was sold further to his daughter namely Ishu Verma. He had signed those documents as witness. Subsequently, the plot in question was sold by Ishu Verma to one Nagma. The petitioner as well as father of Crl. Misc.-M. No. 23749 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the petitioner were witnesses. The fact is that the complainant was called before the Sub Registrar for getting some corrections made in the sale deed executed in favour of Nagma on September 20, 2010 and sale deed in question was got registered. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the civil litigation was already pending before the registration of FIR and in an application for interim injunction, the Civil Court found prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to taken into custody for interrogation. In view of the above, interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 22.09.2011 is made absolute. Petition stands disposed of. 04.11.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) harjeet Judge