Crl. Misc. No. M-34236 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-34236 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 1, 2011 Narinder Pal …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Deep Chand alleging that land measuring 5 kanals 17 marlas situated in Village Sambhalki standing in the name of Kirpi widow of Radha and Ralla Ram in the revenue record has been got transferred on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney dated September 1, 2010 in favour of Amarjit Singh registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ferozepur. Said power of attorney was got registered by producing some impersonator for Kirpi and Ralla Ram though they are not heard of for the Crl. Misc. No. M-34236 of 2011 [2] last so many years. The petitioner had allegedly got executed a sale deed dated October 14, 2010 executed from said Amarjit Singh in his favour for a sum of ` 43,87,000/-. Thereafter the petitioner sold the land to Jamaludin vide sale deed dated November 10, 2010 for a sum of ` 1,05,03,000/-. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has connived with Amarjit Singh in the act of fabrication of power of attorney and being beneficiary as purchaser, he has played fraud and grab the property of Kirpi and Ralla Ram. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Malkiat Singh has vehemently contended that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. He has actually spent a sum of about ` 44 lacs. He himself has been duped by Amarjit Singh. It is claimed that the complainant is himself a land grabber and has got no locus standi to even lodge a complaint. Neither any wrongful loss has been caused to the complainant nor he has got any authority to raise the grievance. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. In order to determine the bonafide of the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce a copy of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Contents of the sale deed dated October 14, 2010 in favour of the petitioner indicate that though the sale consideration is mentioned as ` 43,87,500/- but no money transferred hands in presence of the Sub Registrar. Counsel for the petitioner was also not able to satisfy this Court whether the sale consideration had actually been paid by the petitioner from any of his resources to Amarjit Singh or Amarjit Singh as attorney of Crl. Misc. No. M-34236 of 2011 [3] original owners had transferred the said sale consideration to the original owners. Another glaring factors in the present case is that within 20 days the petitioner has sold the property in dispute for a sum of ` 1,05,03,000/- to Jamaludin which is more than double the amount for which he had purchased the property. It will be premature to form an opinion that petitioner is absolutely innocent and that he is a bonafide purchaser. Prima facie it is a case of land grabbing. So far as challenge to the locus standi of the complainant is concerned, it is irrelevant at this stage as the civil rights of two parties pertaining to a particular property is not to be determined. I do not find any extraordinary exceptional circumstances to grant the concession of pre-arrest to the petitioner. Dismissed. December 1, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE