CRM-M 12004 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Sept 11,2009. Ravinder Sood -- Petitioner vs. The State of Punjab and others --Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Swaran Sandhir,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, A.A.G.Punjab, for the respondent/State. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case registered vide FIR No.38 dated 14.3.2009 under Sections 420/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Haibowal, District Ludhiana. The aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of Raj Kaur, wherein it has been stated that she had purchased land measuring 80 square yard situated at Haibowal, Sant Vihar, Churpur Road, Ludhiana from the petitioner. It is alleged that Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as earnest money but instead of executing the sale deed, Special Power of Attorney was handed over to her taking the undue advantage of her CRM-M 12004 of 2009 2 illiteracy. Later on, remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was also received by the petitioner. He also took Rs.6000, thereafter Rs.20,000/- for registration of sale deed and Rs.10,000/- for electricity meter. Thus, a total amount of Rs.5,86,000/- were received by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner took possession of the property by inducting tenants on the ground that they have to marry their daughter. The complainant was also paid Rs.10,000/- as rent for two months, but so far, possession of the property has not been returned to the complainant. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 27.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that one Ranjit Singh had purchased the property in dispute in a bank auction who further sold it to the petitioner by executing power of attorney in his favour on 22.12.2006 which was registered on 26.12.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner executed a special power of attorney in favour of complainant. But since she did not pay the money, therefore, that special power of attorney was cancelled on 28.3.2007. Thus, in nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he had not received any money from the complainant. Since the petitioner did not implead the complainant as a party in this petition, therefore, on his oral request, she was impleaded as a party as respondent No.3. and notice was sent to her. The complainant has put in appearance in person. It is stated by the learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant (in person) that the money stated in the FIR was CRM-M 12004 of 2009 3 paid to the petitioner but neither the money has been returned nor the possession of the demised premises has been handed over to the complainant so far. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in which recovery is yet to be effected, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby dismissed. Sept 11,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge