IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25527 of 2010 Date of decision : 1.9.2010 Bachan Kaur …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against her for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of the complainant Raghbir Singh who has alleged that the petitioner and her son Ranjit Singh are owners of land measuring about 3.5 acres in village Mukandpura, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The petitioner and her son Ranjit Singh had executed an agreement to sell on 7.8.2006 for selling the land in favour of the complainant at the rate of Rs.12,05,000/- per acre. The petitioner and her son Ranjit Singh received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant in the presence of the witnesses and gave assurance that they would execute the sale deed in his favour on 20.5.2007 and the period for execution Crl. Misc. No. M-25527 of 2010 [2] of the sale deed was extended till 20.6.2007. It is alleged that the petitioner and her son Ranjit Singh received a sum of Rs.14 lacs from the complainant. However, on 20.6.2007, the petitioner and her son Ranjit Singh did not execute the sale deed. The complainant filed a civil suit seeking specific performance. The same was withdrawn on the assurance of the petitioner that the money of the complainant would be returned to him by the petitioner and her son Ranjit Singh. However, the petitioner and her son sold the land to one Pal Singh and amount of Rs.14 lacs had not been recovered from the petitioner and her son. The matter was inquired into by the Police. In the police proceedings that have been recorded, it is mentioned that an agreement to sell dated 7.8.2006 was entered into between the petitioner, her son Ranjit Singh and the complainant Raghbir Singh in respect of the sale of agricultural land measuring 3.5 acres. The petitioner had initially received a sum of Rs.8 lacs as earnest money on 7.8.2006 and thereafter, they (petitioner and her son Ranjit Singh) received a sum of Rs.6 lacs more. Thus, they received Rs.14 lacs in all. On 20.6.2007, due to non-arrangement of funds, the buyer got extension of one year and date of the sale of execution was extended to 4.4.2008. According to the agreement to sell, the complainant along with his sons Sakattar Singh, Baljinder Singh and property dealer Pargat Singh reached the Tehsil office by making arrangement of money. However, the sale deed was not executed. Thereafter, the complainant Raghbir Singh filed a suit for specific performance which was disposed of on the basis of compromise. It is also Crl. Misc. No. M-25527 of 2010 [3] recorded that another agreement was entered into whereby the signatures of Sakattar Singh were obtained instead of Raghbir Singh by giving Rs.3 lacs cash with the promise to pay the balance amount. According to Ranjit Singh, an amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs has been paid to Harpal Singh and Jasbir Singh who are the persons of the complainant Raghbir Singh. During investigation, Ranjit Singh did not produce the said persons. Besides, the amount, it was observed, did not reach Raghbir Singh, complainant. Ranjit Singh and the petitioner without returning back the amount to the complainant and getting cancelled the agreement, had further sold the land to one Pal Singh. It may be noticed that the complainant has withdrawn his civil suit on 10.9.2009. He has not received his sale amount. The investigation was being carried out by the Economic Offence Wing and it was found in the investigation that the petitioner and her son Ranjit Singh had assured that they would return the money to the complainant Raghbir Singh but the money was not returned. Besides, Ranjit Singh, son of the petitioner stated that he had given Rs.3.50 lacs to Harpal Singh and Jasbir Singh to be handed over to the complainant Raghbir Singh, but the said persons were not produced by the petitioner and her son. In the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required for carrying out effective investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an old lady and has not much interest in the land as only her son Ranjit Singh is handling the affairs. It may however be noticed that the petitioner had admittedly signed the agreement to sell Crl. Misc. No. M-25527 of 2010 [4] her share of the land in favour of the complainant Raghbir Singh. Thereafter, she along with her son Ranjit Singh sold the property to one Pal Singh. Besides, she has received the earnest money. The petitioner has also assured to give the money back to the complainant which has not been returned. In the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out and the Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 1, 2010 amit