CRL.M.NO.32003-M of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.M.NO.32003-M of 2009 DATE OF ORDER: 2.8.2010 Ajmer Singh .....Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the complainant. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.363 dated 24.10.2009 under Sections 420/120-B IPC read with Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), P.S. Samana, District Patiala. The gist of allegations against the petitioner, who is 70 years old, are that he was Sarpanch of village Bathoi Khurd, Tehsil and District Patiala in the year 1994, when his sons and nephews had filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act claiming title to the land belonging to the gram panchayat and the petitioner being Sarpanch did not contest the proceedings properly. Further allegations are that the petitioner, thereafter did not file a proper appeal within time resulting into dismissal of the same on the ground CRL.M.NO.32003-M of 2009 #2# of limitation by the ld. Appellate Court. A writ petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of the gram panchayat was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. It appears that the gram panchayat at much subsequent stage filed a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities under the Act wherein this Court quashed all the orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration; and further directed the authorities to initiate criminal cases against the persons, who had committed such a fraud. Learned counsel by referring to P.1 states that the petitioner had before the ld. Collector categorically deposed that the land was owned by the gram panchayat and was used for common purposes and the petitioner had nothing to do with it. In any case, he further submits that the petitioner has joined investigation and as such nothing is to be recovered from him and the case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. Learned state counsel, on instructions from ASI Nirmal Singh, states that the petitioner has joined investigation. In view of the fact that the case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence and that the petitioner has joined investigation, I find that no useful purpose would be served to send the petitioner (a 70 years old man) in custody. Order dated 13.11.2009 passed by this Court is made absolute. Petition stands disposed of. August 02, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE