CRM-M-21991 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CRM-M-21991 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on Sept 23,2011 Narender Pal Singh and another -- Petitioners vs. State of Haryana and another --Respondents Present: Mr.H.S.Gill, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Manuj Nagrath,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari,Advocate,for the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This is a petition for pre arrest bail in a complaint case No.298 of 19.8.2010 titled as Rajesh Kumar Vs. Kulwinder Pal Singh and others under Sections 420, 423, 468 and 34 of the IPC pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. At the time of notice of motion on 22.7.2011, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the allegation of the complainant is that the petitioners have entered into an agreement to sell with him for the sale of 01 Kanals 11 Marlas of land against which they had taken the earnest money, but instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant, they had sold the said land to some other persons, therefore, they had committed the crime of cheating. He further submits that the settlement talks are going on between the parties. Notice of motion for 03.08.2011. In the meantime, on entering appearance before the learned Trial Court, the petitioners shall be CRM-M-21991 of 2011 (O&M) 2 released on interim bail on their furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction”. Pursuant to the notice, learned counsel for the complainant has put in appearance and submits that the petitioner has not honoured the compromise which was arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat. He prays for time to place on record certain documents. Vide separate order of even date recorded separately, CRM-51980 of 2011 is allowed and documents have been taken on record as Annexures C1 to C-4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2. is the owner and petitioner No.1 is the GPA who had sold 1 kanal 11 marlas of land to a third party for an amount of `1,71,000/- despite the fact that there was a decree of the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that execution is pending in which the objections have been filed by the third party on the strength of the alleged sale deed having been executed by the petitioners. He has referred to the order passed by the Court below which reads as under:- “The position of the petitioner Narender Pal Singh, when he filed earlier anticipatory bail application alongwith co-accused Hari Pal and Atul Kumar, when the said bail application was decided on 19.03.2011 and when the present application was filed on 03.05.2011 remained the same. Therefore, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that this second bail application for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner Narender Pal Singh is not maintainable. No doubt that the earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner Narender Pal Singh was not decided on mertits but the manner in which the petitioner Narender Pal Singh withdrawn his earlier bail application when bail application of the co-accused Atul Kumar, and Hari Pal was decided on 19.03.2011 goes to show that the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Narender Pal Singh due to which the petitioner Narender Pal Singh withdraw the bail application qua him. Secondly, there is no change in circumstance of the petitioner Narender Pal Singh since CRM-M-21991 of 2011 (O&M) 3 then i.e. 19.03.2011. On 19.03.2011 also the petitioner Narender Pal Singh was required as an accused in the complaint and still he is. Therefore, when he had withdrawn the earlier bail application for grant of anticipatory bail application, this second anticipatory bail application on the same ground and in the same situation is not maintenance. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner Narender Pal Singh needs to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, the manner in which the petitioners have tried to flout the undertaking given in the court and the manner in which they have mentioned false recital in the subsequent sale deed in favour of Atul Kumar goes to show that they have no respect for court orders. In the compromise dated 18.03.2010, the petitioners undertook to get the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent Rajesh Kumar and five others, who were plaintiffs in the Civil Suit. Despite admitting in the compromise deed that the possession over the disputed land was of the respondent Rajesh Kumar and others, the petitioners got recorded in the sale deed in favour of co-accused Atul Kumar that possession of the land had been given to him. This goes to show that the petitioners are trying to prove that they can flout the law according to their whims and fancy. The learned trial Court after due deliberation and consideration the preliminary evidence and report under Section 202, Cr.P.C. summoned the petitioners under Section 420,424,468 IPC read with Section 34 IPC”. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a case in which they would appear before the trial Court and would be admitted to bail on furnishing their bail bonds and no further investigation is required to be conducted. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is a case in which the petitioners have been summoned after recording preliminary evidence who are prima facie guilty of cheating not only the complainant but also guilty of floating the order of the Court deliberately. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a question of evidence as to whether the order of the Court was floated or not but at CRM-M-21991 of 2011 (O&M) 4 this stage, he could not answer as to why bail application filed by the petitioners before the Court below has been dismissed as not maintainable. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration all the the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on the merits of this case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and the same is hereby dismissed. Sept 23,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge