IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJUAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.M-32258 of 2011 DATE OF ORDER: 18.11.2011 Sanjiv Kumar Mehta ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent and Crl. Misc.M-32274 of 2011 DATE OF ORDER: 18.11.2011 Sanjiv Kumar Saini ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Present: Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Bajwa, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the complainant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (Oral) This order will disposed of two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc.M- 32258 of 2011 and Crl. Misc.M-32274 of 2011 one filed by Sanjiv Kumar Mehta and another by Sanjiv Kumar Saini. The petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered at the instance of Kamaljit Singh alleging that he persuaded by the petitioners and Karamjit Singh to enter into an agreement of sale with Gurpinder Singh to purchase the land measuring 82 kanals 10 marlas. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.33.40 lacs to Gurpinder Singh. Both the petitioners had connived with Gurpinder Singh and made the complainant to believe that Gurpinder Singh was the original owner of the land which is situated in Ropar. The case of the prosecution is that subsequently it was found that Gurpinder Singh had not been the owner of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioners are not shown to be beneficiary in any manner and that they have merely signed the agreement of sale as marginal witnesses. It is Crl. Misc.M-32258 of 2011 -2- claimed that a suit for recovery was filed by the complainant Jasjit Singh against Gurpinder Singh and Karamjit Singh indicative of the fact that the complainant does not any grievance against the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the file, it appears that there are specific allegations against both the petitioners of having connived with Gurpinder Singh and having persuaded the complainant to part with money by making him believe that Gurpinder Singh was the owner of the property. A perusal of the FIR and the material gathered clearly shows that it was with the active connivance of the petitioners that the complainant entered into an agreement to sell. It will not be appropriate at this stage to express any opinion on merits as to what amount has been received by the petitioners in the transaction. No extra ordinary circumstances exists to grant pre arrest bail in view of the specific allegations against the petitioners. Dismissed. However, it is observed that this order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioners in case the appear before the Illaqa Magistrate or the Investigating Officer to seek concession of regular bail in accordance with law. It will be appreciated that in case the application for regular bail is decided expeditiously. A copy of this order be placed in the connected case. 18.11.2011 ( M.M.S. BEDI ) rajeev JUDGE