IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 25032 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 30.04.2010. Yatinder Singh Rana ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, D.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.145, dated 20.07.2007, under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC at police station SGM Nagar, Faridabad. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Briefly stated, allegations against the petitioner – accused are that on the complaint of Dr. Sanjiv Bhagat, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, the present case was registered under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC on the allegation that about 1-1/2 to 2 years ago on the basis of advertisement CRM No.M-25032 of 2009 in the newspaper complainant had booked a plot of 200 sq. yards with PSG Developers through S.M. Build Tech (P) Ltd., Green Park, New Delhi owned by Rajesh Marwah and Ajay Tomar. Initially he had paid a sum of Rs.2,64,100/- vide cheque dated 29.10.2005 of ICICI Bank. He booked another plot on 10.02.2006 of the same company for Noida and paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- through cheques of ICICI bank through Yaksh International, Nehru Ground, Faridabad owned by Vineet Taneja. However, after expiration of period of one year nothing has been done. The present petitioner – accused is owner of the said company. The complainant contacted him several times however, neither plot was allotted to him nor his money was returned. After several attempts, only Rs.50,000/- were returned by the petitioner to the complainant. Further allegations are that other persons, namely, Govind and Sunil Mehndiratta had also booked plots by paying a sum of Rs.2,78,000/- and Rs.5,22,500/-, respectively. It came during investigation that the said company however, had 35 Kanals 9 Marlas of land in villages Neemka and Faridpur while they had no land in Noida (U.P.). On request of the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was ready to return the amount to the complainant of this case if he comes out of the jail, he was ordered to be released on interim bail for a period of 3 months vide order dated 05.10.2009 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court which reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already settled the matter with the complainant in this case. Though it has been pointed out that there are other investors with whom the matter is yet to be settled but since the petitioner is behind the bars, he cannot settle the matter with them. 2 CRM No.M-25032 of 2009 List on 16.12.2009 The petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail for a period of 3 months enabling him to settle the matter with other investors, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. He shall surrender on 5.1.2010.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that though petitioner has come out of the jail pursuant to said order and that he has been making all the efforts to settle the matter with the investors and however, he could not satisfy the claim and that he may be given some more time. Bail application of the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that there are serious allegations against the present petitioner and after coming out of the jail, he has not made any payment to the complainants of this case till today. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. Allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature. He had cheated so many persons like the present complainants, who had booked the plots and made payments. However petitioner was having no land with approved licence and sanctioned plan of the Govt. to give plots and flats to the applicants including the present complainants. Hence, the petitioner who committed fraud on large scale, is not entitled to concession of bail or interim bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, the instant application for bail filed by Yatinder Singh Rana is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit and the order dated 05.10.2009 granting interim bail to the petitioner is vacated. 3 CRM No.M-25032 of 2009 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 30, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4