IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.41685-M of 2006. DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 Sahi Ram ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. B.S.Saroha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr. N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, for the complainant. .. Petitioner Sahi Ram apprehending his arrest in a non-bailable offence in case FIR No.66 dated 12.5.2006 registered under Sections 420/409/467/468/471/120-B and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR. This order be read in continuation of the earlier order dated July 20, 2006 passed by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question from its registered owner, namely, Chandgi Ram. As per the record, Chandgi Ram purchased the said vehicle and financed it from a Finance Company at Jaipur. Thereafter, the said vehicle was purchased by the petitioner from Chandgi Ram and it was undertaken by the petitioner that he would pay the loan amount to the said Finance Company. Subsequently, an FIR under Section 420 IPC was lodged by said Chandgi Ram against the petitioner in the State of Rajasthan in which the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail. Counsel contends that now the instant FIR has been got registered by one Parma Nand on the Crl.Misc.No.41685-M of 2006 -2- ground that Chandgi Ram had agreed to purchase the vehicle with him and for that purpose he got his signatures on some papers and also applied for loan, but subsequently Chandgi Ram got the vehicle transferred in his own name. Counsel further contends that the petitioner has nothing to do as the allegations are against Chandgi Ram. Counsel for the petitioner also contends that in terms of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner has joined the investigation. This fact has not been disputed by the State counsel. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the interim order dated July 20, 2006, the same is made absolute on the same terms and conditions. This bail order shall remain in operation till the investigation culminates into filing of challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. except for material change in the circumstances. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be entitled to the grant of regular bail by the trial Court and the same shall further continue till conclusion of the trial on the conditions to be imposed by the court of competent jurisdiction. Disposed of accordingly. September 25, 2006 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE