Criminal Misc. No. M-28996 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-28996 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 4.11.2009 Shiv Dayal .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had raised loan from the Bank of Maharashtra by mortgaging his land which, as per the allegations in the FIR, had already been agreed to be sold by the petitioner to Amarjeet Singh. The agreement to sell is said to be dated 25.10.2005. The loan was raised by the petitioner from the bank on 5.9.2006. The loan was in the form of Kissan Credit Card which, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, was to be finally adjusted in September, 2009. Prior to the final date of adjustment of the loan, the bank lodged the FIR against the petitioner on 5.6.2009 with the allegation that after the mortgage of the property with the bank as security for the loan, the petitioner executed an agreement to sell which was ante-dated. It was submitted that in the suit filed by Amarjeet Singh seeking specific performance of alleged agreement to sell, the petitioner had put in appearance and denied execution of the agreement. It was much prior to the registration of the FIR against the petitioner by the bank. In the written statement filed in that case, the petitioner admitted the factum of loan raised from the complainant-bank against the property in dispute. It was further submitted that the petitioner has already cleared the entire loan amount of the bank and No Due Certificate has been issued in his favour. Even the entry in the revenue record regarding mortgage of the property also stands removed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the fact that the petitioner had mortgaged the land to raise loan from the bank, which Criminal Misc. No. M-28996 of 2009 [2] was already agreed to be sold, clearly shows the intention of the petitioner from the very beginning and for that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has already cleared the loan raised from the bank by mortgaging the property, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this stage. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/ Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 4.11.2009 mk