IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-79 of 2010 Date of decision : 18.1.2010 Mahesh Nagar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …. Respondent Present: Mr. Y.D. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the complainant. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 30.11.2009 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Sanjiv Saluja who has alleged that he expressed his desire to the petitioner and Ikram to purchase land in village Manger, Tehsil Faridabad. The petitioner and Ikram represented to the complainant that they had an agreement to sell dated 29.6.2009 in respect of land measuring 19 kanals 13 marlas from the owners of the land namely Raghuvinder, Chandarkant and Suryakant and they were interested to sell the land. The complainant was satisfied with the agreement shown by the petitioner and Ikram and agreed to purchase the land. The land was purchased by the complainant vide sale deed dated Crl. Misc. No. M-79 of 2010 [2] 30.10.2006 purported to be executed by Raghuvinder Singh, Chandarkant and Suryakant. The said sellers were identified by Ikraam and Sunil, Advocate. Photocopy of the PAN Card of Suryakant and the photocopy of ration card of Chanderkant were attached with the registered sale deed. Later the complainant sold this land to Tabassum Naseem on 16.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the original owners namely Raghuvinder Singh, Chandarkant and Suryakant have not been questioned. Besides, Ikraam and Sunil, Advocate who had identified them have also not been questioned. It is also submitted that the complainant has lodged the FIR in order to save himself as he has admittedly sold the property to one Tabassum Naseem on 16.12.2008. In response, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is the main accused in the case and he had represented that the property was to be sold and he had set up a false agreement dated 29.6.2009 representing it to be from the owners of the land namely Raghuvinder, Chandarkant and Suryakant. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he came to know of the fraud played on the complainant only after the property was sold to Tabassum Naseem vide sale deed dated 16.12.2008 and the complainant has returned the money to Tabassum Naseem, which he had taken for the sale of the land by him. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that in the present case, the petitioner is attributed one of the main role in the sale of land to the complainant. The petitioner made a false representation of he being in possession of an agreement to sell dated 29.6.2009 from the owners of the land namely Crl. Misc. No. M-79 of 2010 [3] Raghuvinder, Chandarkant and Suryakant. In fact no such genuine agreement was there. Besides, some other and fake persons were produced as the owners of the land before the Sub-Registrar and sale deed was executed. The contention that the complainant has raised the issue after sale of land to Tabbassum Naseem is without merit as the complainant is stated to have returned the sale consideration to Tabbassum Naseem. It is well-known that considerations governing the Court's decision on an application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending an appeal before a higher Court. The exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extraordinary in character. Besides, the advantage of custodial interrogation to elicit more and useful information is to be kept in view. In the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 18, 2010 amit