IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25579 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 27, 2011 Suman Sharma. …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Paramjeet Singh Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for the complainant. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 308, dated 13.08.2010, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala City. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the alleged original agreement to sell is not in CRM M-25579 of 2010 possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the parties, as well as, Investigating Officer ASI Gurdial Singh, who is present in person in Court, have stated that as yet alleged original agreement to sell has not been seen by anybody. This is also admitted to the learned counsel for the parties that original agreement to sell has not been produced before any Court to raise claim over the property of the complainant as yet. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that he has earlier filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of Photostat of the alleged agreement to sell and thereafter, present FIR was filed by the complainant. This Court vide order dated 01.09.2010 has granted interim bail to the petitioner. It is pointed out by the Investigating Officer that pursuant to order dated 01.09.2010, the petitioner has joined investigation. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Order dated 01.09.2010 is made absolute, subject to the limitations provided under Section 438(2) of the Code. Petitioner-accused shall participate in the investigation as and when he is required. However, it is made clear if agreement to sell is placed before the Court and same is found to be forged and fabricated one or Court finds that 2 CRM M-25579 of 2010 photocopy placed before the Court is of forged and fabricated document, Court shall be at liberty on the application of the complainant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to hold enquiry and to direct the prosecution of the accused- petitioner herein. January 27, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3