IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3664 of 2011 Date of decision: 10th February, 2011 Rakesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.16 dated 17.01.2011 registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula under Sections 406/420 IPC. Petitioner is stated to be owner of the land situated in HB No.216 at village Kunjahal. It is stated that for the sale of this land, he entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant Sanjeev Kumar. The petitioner had received Rs.6.00 lakh as earnest money and a cheque worth Rs.18.00 lakh as a total sale consideration. It is stated that the cheque when presented was returned by the Bank with a remark that the payment has been stopped. It is stated that the petitioner had also served a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 upon the complainant. The notice has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-2. Criminal Misc. No.M-3664 of 2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that since prices of the land had fallen, complainant was not ready to keep his word, even though at that time, the petitioner was ready to execute the sale deed qua the land for which an agreement to sell was executed. It is stated in the FIR that the accused petitioner had failed to obtain necessary permission for getting the sale deed executed regarding the land in question. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated at bar that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the amount of Rs.6.00 lakh received by the accused petitioner has been returned to the complainant by a post-dated-cheque dated 30th April, 2011. In view of the statement made by counsel for the petitioner at bar, it is ordered that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, he shall join investigation as and when called for by the investigating officer. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. In case the amount of cheque is not encashed, the investigating agency will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 10, 2011 rps 2