Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners (16 in All); learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the relevant documents placed before me including the orders dated 20-9-2005 and 18-8-2004 passed in S.B. Cr.Misc. Bail Application No. 2733/2004 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court admitting 10 of the present petitioners to bail.
(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the earlier case F.I.R. No. 109/2004 between the same parties with the same allegations pertaining to the same disputed property, 10 of the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the aforesaid order and bail has been denied to the petitioners by the learned court below on the ground that the petitioners are continuing in possession of the disputed property even though stay order is there in favour of the accused-persons.
(3.) Learned P.P. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have both opposed the bail application.;