RAM CHAND GUPTA,J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.187 dated 22.08.2012, under Sections 379/420/452/467/468/471/506/120B IPC, registered at police station Pinjore (District Panchkula).
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 17.09.2012 passed the following order:- "Crl.M.No.55087 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-28672 of 2012 Contends that petitioner no.1 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration of the property in dispute from its real owner after paying Rs. 17 lacs and that petitioner no.2, who is husband of petitioner no.1, is a witness of the said sale-deed. It is further submitted that as per recital in the said sale-deed, possession of the property in dispute was handed over to petitioner-wife by the earlier owner. It is further contended that possession was never handed over by earlier owner to the complainant pursuant to alleged agreement executed by real owner in favour of complainant, which was not brought to the notice of present petitioners at the time of execution of sale-deed in their favour. Further submitted that nothing has been mentioned in the alleged agreement to sell executed in favour of the complainant by the previous owner about handing over part possession of the property in dispute, as per the allegations, and that even the allegations on the point in the complaint are vague as it has not been mentioned as to possession of which specific portion of the property in dispute was handed over to her pursuant to the said agreement. It is further submitted that so far as alleged allegation of taking forcible possession by petitioners are concerned, the same are contradictory and vague one as in one para of the complaint it has been mentioned that on 12.7.2012 when complainant visited the property in dispute, she came to know that possession was already taken by the present petitioners pursuant to the sale-deed executed by previous owner in their favour and that, however, at the same time it has been averred in another para of the complainant that accused nos.1, 4 alongwith 7-8 persons had come to the property in dispute and had taken away the articles of the complainant lying in the locked room. Further submitted that moreover dispute, if any, is civil in nature. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 15.10.2012. However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."
(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 17.09.2012 It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.;