In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-4853 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:25.3.2009 Sudeep Sinha .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad. The complaint has been registered on the application of Shiv Kumar Verma, who has alleged that he has been cheated and fraud has been played against him by the petitioner and his parents, namely, K.R. Sinha and Smt. Ranjita Sinha. It is alleged that the said accused are habitual of getting money on one pretext or the other. They had executed a memorandum of understanding with the complainant wherein they had admitted the receipt of Rs.62,50,000/- which had been paid in cash as well as drafts. The accused Sudeep Sinha (petitioner), K.R. Sinha and Smt. Ranjita Sinha are owners in possession of plot No.81, DLF Industrial Estate-I, Faridabad which is in the name of M/s Machine and Steel Tubes Corporation. The Cr. Misc. No.M-4853/2009 [2] accused are the partners of the said firm. That on behalf of the accused, a further payment of Rs.30 Lacs was made on 6.8.2000 which was paid to Sumant Majumdar and Ms. Sona Majumdar as they are guarantors on their behalf. The payment of the amount of Rs.30 Lacs was reduced in writing and acknowledged by the accused, however, the sale deed could not be executed due to litigation between United Bank of India and the accused which was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Delhi. It came to the notice of the complainant that sale deed had been executed by the accused illegally and unlawfully by playing fraud so as to grab money of the complainant. The petitioner is in custody since 9.12.2008. The challan in the case has been filed. In terms of the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; besides such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence under Section 420 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for seven Cr. Misc. No.M-4853/2009 [3] years and that under Section 406 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for three years; besides, it is submitted that the petitioner has never been convicted earlier in any other case and neither is there any case pending against him. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had cheated the complainant Shiv Kumar Verma for an amount of Rs.62,50,000/-, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case against the petitioner is triable by the Court of Magistrate of Ist Class. The challan in the case has been filed. It is to be established by the prosecution by leading evidence as to whether offence against the petitioner has been made out or not. The petitioner has been in custody since 9.12.2008. The amounts that are stated to have been paid by the complainant and received by the petitioner would require to be reconciled. In the circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted the concession of bail. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate shall be admitted to bail. March 25, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*