Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. By this common order, two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. Nos. M-8158 of 2009 titled as "Laxmi Narain v. State of Haryana" and M-8317 of 2009 titled as " Virender v. State of Haryana " filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 116 dated 7.2.2009 registered at Police Station City Jind, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC will be decided together. 2. On 24.3.2009, this Court had passed the following order in Criminal Misc. No. M-8158 of 2008 preferred by Laxmi Narain :- "Counsel has submitted that Laxmi Narain petitioners has purchased land vide agreement deed No. 2789 dated 12th October, 1990. Thereafter, he had sold 2 kanals 12 marlas of land to the complainant. Grievance of the complainant is that petitioner could not sell the land as he was only possessed of 40 square yards of land. It has further been submitted that another Attorney Birender Singh executed another agreement to sell on 15th May 2006, when petitioner was not possessed of the land. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that offence, if any, pertains to year 2003 to 2006. Sufficient time has elapsed. Counsel has further submitted that it is essentially a civil dispute and offence, if any, is based upon documents and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. In the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, petitioner shall join investigation as and when called for. Petitioner shall abide by the condition is specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. At this stage, Mr. R.N. Lohan has caused appearance for the complainant". 3. This Court had also passed the following order in Criminal Misc. No. M-8317 of 2009 titled as "Virender v. State of Haryana":- "Counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Laxmi Narain had been granted prearrest bail vide Criminal Misc. No. M-8158 of 2009. It is further submitted that petitioner was given power of attorney by Randhir Singh Lathar who was attorney of Laxmi Narain. He further submitted that attorney in favour of the petitioner was executed on 22.3.2003 and thereafter petitioner executed attorney in the year 2005. Counsel further submits that dispute, if any, is based upon documents, custodial interrogation is not required. Counsel also rely upon contentions noticed in the order of Laxmi Narain, co-accused. He further submitted that attorney in favour of the petitioner was executed on 22.3.2003 and thereafter petitioner executed attorney in the year 2005. Counsel further submits that dispute, if any, is based upon documents, custodial interrogation is not required. Counsel also rely upon contentions noticed in the order of Laxmi Narain, co-accused. Issue notice of motion to learned Advocate General, Haryana, for 18.4.2009. To be heard along with Criminal Misc. No. M-8158 of 2009. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called for. Petitioner shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C." 4. Counsel for the State has submitted, on instructions from Ram Chander, Sub Inspector, that petitioners have joined investigation and are no longer required for custodial interrogation. Mr. Lohan has submitted that a fraud has been played upon the complainant. It is essentially a civil dispute. In view of the statement made by counsel for the State and order dated 24.3.2009 passed by this Court, petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail granted till filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. petitioners shall furnish regular bail-bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off.