JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J.: - Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. The complainant Yasin in his complaint has alleged that the petitioner sold his land measuring about 1 Killa (acre) vide sale deed dated 18.03.2002 to him. Thereafter, the complainant received a notice in the year 2008 from the Court and from the copy of the complaint, it came to his (complainant’s) notice that the son of the petitioner namely Maujam, had filed a suit. From the said suit the complainant came to know that 4 Kanals 5 Marlas of land had already been transferred in the name of Maujam by the petitioner in the presence of his father Ishak. The said land was the same land which was sold and transferred in favour of the complainant. Maujam had filed a suit on 05.04.2008 wherein he claimed that the sale deed dated 18.03.2002 executed by the petitioner-Hashim @ Hasam in favour of the complainant-Yasin in respect of half share in the land comprised in Khasra No.4 (7-0) and 5/1 (1-10) was illegal and liable to be ignored. Maujam had based his claim on the registered release deed dated 13.08.2001 in respect of the suit land. The said suit filed by Maujam has been partly decreed to the extent that Maujam-plaintiff is the owner of land measuring 8 Kanals. However, the suit of the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 4 Kanals 5 Marlas in rectangle No.178 Killa No.4/5/1 was dismissed. Insofar as the sale deed dated 18.03.2002 is concerned, it was observed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) that the same could not be challenged after a period of 6 years of its execution and the sale in favour of the complainant-Yasin has been upheld. The photostat copy of the judgment has been submitted by the learned counsel which is taken on record. 3. Maujam, son of the petitioner filed an appeal wherein status quo in respect of the land has been ordered. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was never served in the complaint that has been filed and even otherwise, he is ready to join the investigation. 5. A perusal of the judgment dated 18.10.2010 shows that the petitioner did not contest the claim and it is only the complainant-Yasin, who was defendant No.1, who contested the suit. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was never served in the complaint that has been filed and even otherwise, he is ready to join the investigation. 5. A perusal of the judgment dated 18.10.2010 shows that the petitioner did not contest the claim and it is only the complainant-Yasin, who was defendant No.1, who contested the suit. Besides, the said judgment also shows that the petitioner who was defendant No.2 in the suit had executed a registered release deed in favour of his son Maujam on 13.08.2001 and thereafter, he sold the same land to the complainant vide sale deed dated 18.03.2002 as such his intentions were not clear. Besides, it may be noticed that when he (petitioner) did not appear before the Court when he was summoned and he was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 14.10.2009 and there is no explanation as to why he did not appear. 6. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in case, the petitioner surrenders before the Police within 2 days from receipt of copy of this order and files an application for release on regular bail, his application for regular bail shall be considered within 3 days of its filing subject to excluding the period of police remand, if any. ------------------------