CRM-M-24450 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-24450 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 02.09.2009 **** Parveen Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.S.S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.67 dated 3.7.2009 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Gurinder Kaur w/o Jasbir Singh. In brief, Gurinder Kaur (complainant) had purchased Plots bearing No.247, 279 and 280, total measuring 27 marlas and 108 square feet, situated at Bombay Nagar, Village Khurla Kingra, Jalandhar from Sher-e-Punjab Co-operative House Building Society. The Society, through the petitioner, sold plot No.247 measuring 9 marlas 31 square feet to Jaspal Singh son of Nirmal Singh by way of a registered sale deed, plot No.280 measuring 9 marlas 31 square feet to Smt. Megha wife of Munish Kumar through registered sale deed dated 24.4.2007 and plot No.279 to Smt. Veena CRM-M-24450 of 2009 - 2 - Rani wife of Vijay Kumar vide sale deed dated 27.8.2007. The allegation of the complainant is that the society of the petitioner had no right to sale the aforesaid plots, which were owned by her. Faced with this allegation, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which was dismissed on 26.8.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was an employee of the society. He had sold the aforesaid property complying with the resolution of the society. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the offence committed by the petitioner has been admitted. As the Office Secretary of the Society, he had the knowledge that the society is not the owner of the aforesaid plots, which have been sold by him. In view of the above, I do not find it to be a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Hence the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 02, 2009 JUDGE vivek