CRM-M-937 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-937 of 2011 Decided on 17.10.2011 Vijay --Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent A N D CRM-M-24161 of 2011 Decided on 17.10.2011 Daulat Ram --Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Surender Deswal,Advocate,for the petitioner (in CRM-M-937of 2011) and Mr.Kunal Dawar,Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-24161 of 2011) Mr.Vikas Malik,AAG,Haryana Mr.Robin Dutt,Advocate, for the complainat in both the cases RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J: (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing CRM- M-937 of 2011 (Vijay Vs. State of Haryana (for short 'first petition') filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail and CRM-M-24161 of 2011 (Daulat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (for short, 'second petition') filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.407 dated 13.12.2010, under Sections 420,467,468, 471,120-B,406,506 of the IPC at Police Station, Sohna, Gurgaon. The FIR is registered at the instance of Vidya Devi who is CRM-M-937 of 2011 2 alleged to have been cheated by the petitioner (s) at the time when the land was sold on the basis of jamabandi for the years 2001-2002 of village Sancholi Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon, which has been shown to be chahi whereas it was Gair Mumkin Nehar. In the first petition, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail alleging that at the time of notice of motion, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court had wrongly mentioned the petitioner as a witness to the agreement to sell, but he is neither a beneficiary nor a witness. In the second petition, it was alleged that the petitioner is the seller but he is not a previous offender and is in custody from 06.4.2011. In the first petition, the Court had found that not only the petitioners are involved but Halqa Patwari and Kanungo are also equally responsible for showing the gair mumkin land to be chahi. It was also found that Kanungo has been suspended and he is absconding and Patwari Ahmad Sadiq is on leave. The Investigating Officer was asked to explain as to why the said Patwari has not been arrested so far and it is replied that efforts have been made but he could not be apprehended. In this regard, D.C.P (South),Gurgaon has filed his affidavit in which he has stated that efforts were made to arrest the Patwari Ahmad Sadiq who has been granted bail by the Court below but now the same has been cancelled. Affidavit of D.C.P. (South) Gurgaon is taken on record. Today, learned counsel for the complainant, on the instructions received from the husband of the complainant who is present in the Court and is identified by ASI Varinder Singh/IO submits that the matter has been compromised and a sum of ` 26,00,000/- which was given by the CRM-M-937 of 2011 3 complainant in lieu of the land has been returned to her by the accused. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 13.1.2011 passed in first bail application is made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. The petitioner in the second petition is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Both the petitions stand disposed of . 13.10.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge