In the High Court for the States of Pun jab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on July 01,2009. Khem Singh Petitioner vs. State of Haryana Respondent. Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Partap Singh,Sr.DAG,Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: On a complaint filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short, 'Cr.PC), a case under Sections 420/467/468/471/419/120-B of Indian Penal Code , was registered vide FIR No. 95 dated 06.2.2009 at Police Station, Faridabad Central, District Faridabad., against as many as five persons, namely Khem Singh, Beg Raj, Anil, Harikant Sharma, Advocate and one unknown person, on the allegations that in conspiracy with each other, land measuring 71 kanal 02 marlas situated in village Alipur Shikar Gah, Faridabad owned by one Shiv Sahay son of Kanhaya son of Bhura,resident of the same village, who is permanently missing since 1911 from Delhi, has been sold by accused No.5 (unknown person) impersonating as Shiv Sahay in favour of Khem Singh (petitioner) vide registered sale deed No.20889 dated 12.12.2008 which has been witnessed by Beg Raj and Anil who have been identified by Harikant Sharma Advocate. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed Bail application No.1 of 2009 before the Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Faridabad, which has been dismissed on 15.4.2009. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present bail application in which notice of motion was issued on 2.6.2009 for 09.6.2009, but interim relief was declined. On 9.6.2009, the case was adjourned for today. Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question for a sum of Rs.20 lacs and in fact, he has been cheated by the seller. On the other hand , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has contended that out of five accused mentioned herein above, Beg Raj and Harish have been arrested on 5.3.2009 and 24.3.2009 and the other two accused Anil and Harikant Sharma have not been arrested so far. It is also argued that admittedly, the land in dispute is owned by Shiv Sahay who has been recorded as dead in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, and the sale and purchase of his land was prohibited. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious offence as it is not reflected from the sale deed that amount of Rs. 20 lacs was paid before the Sub Registrar. Keeping in view the nature of offence but without commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the bail application is hereby dismissed. July 01,2009 (RakeshKumar Jain) RR Judge