In the High Court for the States of Pun jab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM.M-17180 of 2009 Decided on July 06,2009. Sat Pal Petitioner vs. State of Haryana Respondent. Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Diwan S.Adlakha,Advocate,for the respondent Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 71 dated 13.5.2009, registered under Sections 420/406 IPC, at Police Station, Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar. Briefly, the facts of the case are that some posts of Naib Tehsildars were advertised by the State of Haryana. The petitioner informed the complainant and asked him to apply for the post. He assured him that he will get him recruited and in this process, he took Rs.3,33,000/- from the complainant in January,2008 and Rs.6 lacs on 18.2.2008. However, the complainant was not selected. The complainant asked the petitioner to return the amount which he did not pay and ultimately a panchayat was held in the village on 27.1.2009 in which the petitioner admitted the receipt of Rs.9,00,000/- CRM.M-17180 of 2009 -2- from the complainant and assured him to pay Rs.5,00,000/- up to 27.2.2009 but even then the amount was not paid. The petitioner even offered to transfer his land to the complainant and executed an agreement but it was found to be only with regard to possession of the land which was already under attachment. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions at Yamuna Nagar, but the same was dismissed on 21.5.2009. During the pendency of the bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.31475 of 2009 in order to place on record copy of the agreement dated 21.3.2009. The application was allowed and document Annexure A-3 was taken on record. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had actually raised a loan of Rs.1,67,000/- from the complainant which could not be paid, as a result of which, he entered into an agreement on 21.3.2009 for selling of his possessory rights against payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. He denied that the petitioner had taken Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of getting him recruited as Naib Tehsildar. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner had admitted before the panchayat held in his own village that he had received an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant and had also promised to return the same. It is also argued that in CRM.M-17180 of 2009 -3- order to further cheat the complainant, the petitioner had agreed to sell only his possessory rights and not the proprietory rights over the land which was already attached. Keeping in view the nature of offence and repeated assurance given by the petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. July 06 ,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge