Criminal Misc. No. M-15814 of 2009 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-15814 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.7.2009
Virsa Singh and others
.. Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. P. S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
While issuing notice of motion on 4.6.2009, this Court passed the
following order:
” Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered at the instance
of Mahabir Singh alleging that petitioners along with other 20
persons had cut the crop of complainant.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that as a matter of fact,
Kashmiro Bai on July 21, 2008 had sold 15 kanals 1 marla of land to
petitioner No. 1. Subsequently she sold 5 kanals 1 marla land out of
the said land by executing another sale deed. Sale deed stands
challenged before the civil court. In order to pressurize petitioner No.
1 to withdraw his civil suit, petitioners have been falsely implicated
in the case. Counsel for the petitioners relies upon various orders
passed by the court in favour of Virsa Singh-petitioner No. 1.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the civil suit
filed by them, declaration and protection of possession has been sought for the
entire land measuring 15 kanals and one marla, where there is interim stay
regarding possession in their favour. Till date, there is no civil suit filed by
Kashmiro Bai challenging the sale deed executed by her attorney in favour of the
petitioners regarding 15 kanals and one marla of land. The petitioners had
Criminal Misc. No. M-15814 of 2009 [ 2]
harvested the crop standing in their own land. The son of the complainant had
purchased another plot of 3 kanals and 8 marlas in the neighbourhood from the
sister of Kashmiro Bai. The complaint was not filed by the owner of the land,
rather, by his father. It is only to pressurize the petitioners to withdraw the suit.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
petitioners having harvested the crop standing in the land of the complainant and
the recovery of produce having not been effected till date, the petitioners are not
entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the
aforesaid facts, however, without recording any opinion thereon, least the same
may effect the case of either of the parties, especially when civil disputes between
the parties are already pending and it is yet to be established as to from which land
the crop was harvested and that too only from a small portion of 3 kanals and 8
marlas, I do not find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners will be required.
Accordingly, the interim bail granted by this Court on 4.6.2009 is
made absolute.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
28.7.2009
mk
