JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal, J. (Oral):- The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 438of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail, after dismissal ofthe bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in caseFIR No.138 dated 01.10.2017 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, PoliceStation Guruhar Sahai, District Ferozepur. 2. Mr. K.B. Raheja, learned counsel for the petitioners submitsthat as per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant-Pala Singh allegedthat Kuldip Singh, father of the petitioner No.1 and Balwinder Singh, fatherof petitioner No.2, had assured the complainant to employ his son anddaughter, namely, Gurmeet Singh and Sheena Rani, in a Government joband in lieu thereof, he is stated to have paid a sum of Rs.12 Lacs. 3. He further submits that the incident is of the year 2014 and FIRwas registered against the petitioners and others in the year 2017, which isnothing, but as an counter blast. The Civil Suit (Annexure P-5) titled as”Kuldip Singh and another V/s Pala Singh and others” claiming thefollowing relief, is pending before the Civil Court:- “Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants notto dispossess forcibly to the plaintiffs who is in exclusive,physical and constructive possession of the suit propertybearing Khasra No.176//18/2, 21/2, 22, 23, 19, 17/2, 181//1/1,3/1, 1/2, 181/2, 4/4, 12/1, 176//18/1/1, 176/20/2/2, 175//25,182//5, 181//26 bearing Khewat/Khatouni No.621/795,796/1129-860/1126-207/340 situated at Village Sohian KalanTehsil & District Amritsar correctly shown as per theJamabandi for the year 2011-12 otherwise in due course oflaw.’’ 4. He further submits that no role has been attributed to thepetitioners, thus, urges this Court for grant of anticipatory bail to thepetitioners. 5. Mr. IPS Doabia, Addl. A.G., Punjab, on instructions from HCGurdeep Singh, submits that FIR is at the stage of investigation, but did notdispute the factum of pendency of the civil suit. The custodial interrogationof the petitioners would be necessary to ascertain the allegations made inthe FIR, particularly the complainant is stated to have paid the amount ofRs. 12 Lacs. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraisedthe paper book and of the view that unconverted fact as made out from thepaper book is that the Civil Suit (Annexure P-5) is stated to be pendingbetween the father & mother of petitioner No.1 and the complainant. Theincident as referred to in the FIR is of the year 2014, whereas the complaintwas submitted to the Police only in the year 2017, after the filing of the civilsuit. Theincident as referred to in the FIR is of the year 2014, whereas the complaintwas submitted to the Police only in the year 2017, after the filing of the civilsuit. The alleged payment is also stated to have been made in cash. 7. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, I do not intend tocomment further upon the merits and demerits of the case, which would besubject matter of evidence before the Court below, in case the Police intendsto file a report against the petitioners, but the custodial interrogation in suchcase against the petitioners, in my view, would not be required andaccordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are grantedanticipatory bail. They are directed to join the investigation as and whencalled by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be admitted to anticipatory bail subject to their furnishingpersonal bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. They are alsodirected to comply with the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.