JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) - The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 167 dated 07.08.2012, under Sections 420/120-B IPC, registered at police station Jandiala Guru, Amritsar Rural. 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, Amritsar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute, if any, is civil in nature and that even from the reading of FIR, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner. It has been contended that admittedly lease deed, Annexure P1 was executed by complainant in favour of Gurnam Singh and Rachpal Singh and possession of the land in dispute was handed over for a period of 15 years and lease was to be extended for further period of five years. It is further submitted that the possession of the land in dispute was handed over by Gurnam Singh son of Mohinder Singh to Sukhwaryam Singh, who handed over the possession of the same to present petitioner. It is further contended that he filed suit for permanent injunction against complainant Gurdial Singh and complainant also filed a suit for mandatory injunction against present petitioner and both the civil suits are pending. It is also contended that a civil writ petition was also filed by complainant in this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.03.2012, Annexure P3 by observing that as civil suit before the court of competent jurisdiction in regard to aforesaid validity of extension of lease or otherwise is pending, hence, it was observed that no order was required to be passed in the writ petition. Hence, it is contended that the dispute regarding alleged extension of lease deed is pending before the civil court. 4. Hence, it is contended that the dispute regarding alleged extension of lease deed is pending before the civil court. 4. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for complainant as well as by learned counsel for respondent-State, on instruction from SI Balkar Singh, on the plea that as per lease deed, Annexure P1 the same could be extended for a further period of five years with the consent of complainant-owner and that however, some lease deed regarding alleged extension was created by present petitioner in connivance with Sukhwaryam Singh in favour of present petitioner and the same was submitted before Punjab Pollution Control Board and he also obtained consent of the Board for running the brick kiln. Hence, it is contended that the same is affecting the rights of the complainant. It is also contended that complainant had been receiving money from the original leasee and not from the present petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, dispute regarding extension of the lease is pending before civil court. Two civil suits are pending before civil court of competent jurisdiction i.e. one filed by the complainant and another by the present petitioner. 6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 7. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Ramesh Chander Kakkar is accepted. 8. Petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case of his arrest, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 9. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.