CRM No.M-16244 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-16244 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2011 Harpal Singh alias Kirpal Singh alias Ghunna and others ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN. Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.P.S. Sidhu, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Prem Kumar Hans, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short-'the Cr.P.C.') in a case registered vide FIR No.163 dated 12.05.2011 under Sections 457, 380, 427, 448 and 34 IPC at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala. On 25.05.2011, the following order was passed:- “Counsel for the petitioner states that the allegations are false. Civil dispute is pending inter parties. The petitioner has no intention of dispossessing the complainant except in due course of law and has no objection if the shops are used by the complainant. Notice of motion to A.G. Punjab. On the asking of the Court, Mr.Sailesh Gupta, DAG CRM No.M-16244 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: Punjab accepts notice. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply a copy of the petition to counsel for the respondent during the course of the day. Adjourned to 6.7.2011. Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed“. Today, learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the petitioners had already taken possession on the day when the aforesaid statement was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.P.S. Jammu, Advocate, has submitted that when the aforesaid statement was made, he was not aware that they had already taken possession, therefore, he made the statement that they would not dispossess the complainant except in due course of law. Be that as it may be, the statement made on 25.02.2011 by the learned counsel for the petitioners when the arrest of the petitioners was stayed, was incorrect and in view thereof, I do not find that the petitioners deserve any concession of bail. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE July 06, 2011 sukhpreet