CRM-M-22630-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] ::::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22630-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:01.08.2011. Kulwant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No.142 dated 06.07.2011, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Navi Bradari, Jalandhar. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has sold the land of the complainant without his permission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had appointed Shashi Pal as his General Power of Attorney who further delegated his power to the present petitioner as he had the power to appoint Special Power of Attorney. The Special Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner was executed by aforesaid Shashi Pal on 07.11.2007 on the basis of which he has sold the property in dispute to one Neelam Arora. He further submits that Shashi Pal is behind the bars, whereas the petitioner had been duly authorized by Shashi Pal on basis of the power he had, in terms of the General Power of Attorney, to execute the sale deed, therefore, no offence has been committed by him. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the CRM-M-22630-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] ::::::::: record, I am of the opinion that recovery of `22,45,000/-, which is the sale consideration of the land in dispute, is yet to be effected which is in possession of the petitioner. Although learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is with Shashi Pal, but Shashi Pal is behind the bars who had not sold the property, rather the sale has been effected the present petitioner, therefore, he is directly connected with the commission of offence. In view of the above, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. August 01, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE