CRM-M 8474 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Pun jab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Oct 08,2009. Harjeet Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.G.K.Dulat,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat,A,A.G.Punjab. Mr.L.S.Sidhu.Advocate,for the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This order shall dispose of two anticipatory bail petitions, namely CRM-M 8474 of 2009 (Harjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab) and CRM-M 8465 of 2009 (Babu Singh vs.State of Punjab), as both have arisen out of FIR No.10 dated 07.3.2009, registered under Sections 420/34 IPC, at Police Station, Balianwali, District Bathinda. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Jagannath son of Sadda Ram, resident of Kotli Kalan, Balianwali, Bathinda, in which he has alleged that he and his son Tarsem Chand are the residents of Kotli Kalan and are owners of 41 kanals some marlas of land situated in village Kotli Khurd. Daughter of the complainant is married to Mela Ram of village Balianwali who is also known to Harjeet CRM-M 8474 of 2009 2 Singh alias Bhola petitioner in CRM-M 8474 of 2009. It is alleged that the complainant Jagannath was residing with his daughter at Balianwali for about 5/6 months. During his stay with his daughter, Harjeet Singh (petitioner in CRM-M 8474 of 2009) and Babu Singh (petitioner in CRM- M 8465 of 2009) visited him and asked him that they could sell his land at a good price so that he could purchase more land. According to the complainant, he agreed to sell his land @ Rs.8,50,000/- per acre. He was given Rs.50,000/- towards earnest money as the property was to be purchased by Paramjit Kaur wife of Jagdev and one Pala Singh. It was alleged that on 16.7.2008, both the petitioners asked him to open a bank account so that the money could be directly transferred to his account. On this, his daughter Nirmala Devi and his son-in-law Mela Ram opened an account in State Bank of Patiala Branch, Balianwali. On 17.7.2008, both the petitioners deposited Rs.10,00,000/-and Rs.7,50,000/-. They also promised to pay the remaining amount at the time of registry and asked the complainant to reach Maur Tehsil on18.7.2008. According to the complainant, the total consideration was Rs. 43,56,000/-. It is also alleged that before the sale deed could be registered, the complainant asked the petitioners for the remaining sale consideration. The complainant Jagannath was taken alongwith his son-in-law Tarsem Chand to a car where Paramjit Kaur and Pala Singh were sitting having money in three bags which was shown to them but they were told that the money shall be given to them on reaching the village as they had no arrangement. According to the complainant, the sale deed was registered on the assurance of the purchaser. After reaching the village, they gave another sum of Rs. 9 lacs and a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- was deposited in the bank in the name of his CRM-M 8474 of 2009 3 daughter. According to the complainant, out of total consideration of Rs. 43,56,000/-, Rs. 16,56,000/- is still due which has not been paid by the vendee and when the complainant asked for this amount, both the petitioners flatly refused. Before coming to this Court, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide his order dated 17.3.2009. In this Court, both the petitioners namely Harjeet Singh alias Bhola and Babu Singh have filed their separate bail petitions in which they were granted interim bail on 2.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in terms of the said order, the petitioners have joined the investigation. It is submitted that the petitioners are neither beneficiaries nor signatories of the sale deed. It is submitted that the offence, if any, of non-payment of remaining sale consideration could, at the most, be attributed to the vendee, who is the beneficiary. It is also submitted that after the sale deed was executed on 18.7.2008, mutation was also entered by Patwari Halqa on 22.7.2008 without any murmur by the complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioners have been falsely roped in this case, although they are not connected with the vendee in any manner. As against this, learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that there are other cases against the petitioners namely, FIR No.38 dated 23.5.2009 under Sections 420,467,468,470,471,120-B IPC,registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, in which both the petitioners have been specifically named; FIR No.64 dated 13.6.2009 under Sections 325,324,323,447,148,149 IPC, registered at Police Station CRM-M 8474 of 2009 4 Maur, Tehsil Bhikhi, District Mansa in which both the petitioners are also named; FIR No.38 dated 23.5.2009 under Sections 420,467,468,470,471,120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda; FIR No.48 dated 26.5.1992 registered at Police Station, Talwandi Saboo, District Bathinda (Annexure R-3) in which Babu Singh petitioner is also named and also two FIRs which have been registered against Babu Singh and others; FIR No.99 dated 28.12.1987, registered under Section 304 IPC at Police Station, Maur and FIR No.72 25.5.2003, registered under Sections 452,148 IPC, at Police Station, City Mansa, as disclosed by Gurtej Singh,Head Constable of Police Station POW Wing, Bathinda. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the antecedents of the petitioners, I find that the petitioners have actively participated in the transaction in which the complainant has been duped of an amount of Rs. 16,56,000/- which is still to be recovered. Therefore, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to both the petitioners. Hence, both the bail applications are hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that nothing observed herein shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Oct 08,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge