Crl.M.No.M-6532 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-6532 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 31, 2010 Sukhdev Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.L.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.39 dated 5.2.2010, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Abohar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is only a property dealer and that the main accused, i.e., the seller, has already been granted regular bail by learned trial Court. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel, on instructions of Bohar Singh, ASI, on the plea that petitioner- accused actively connived with co-accused and sold a plot to complainant after receiving Rs.2,80,000/-, whereas the said plot was owned by somebody else and was in possession of somebody else. It is further contended that petitioner-accused is also involved in another case bearing FIR No.778, dated 27.10.2009, under Sections 419/420/405/467/468/471/ 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda, and in that case Crl.M.No.M-6532 of 2010 (O&M) -2- as well he had forged power of attorney on behalf of the owner and committed fraud by selling the same on the basis of the said alleged forged power of attorney. Hence, it is argued that he is a habitual offender and his custodial interrogation is necessary. I have considered all the facts of the case. In view of the fact that petitioner-accused is also involved in another case of similar nature, he is not entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. His custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Sukhdev Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 31.3.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge