IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25017 of 2009 Date of decision : September 25, 2009 Kosar Ali ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. GS Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana for respondent no. 1 Mr. VK Jindal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Kosar Ali has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in criminal complaint No. 32 dated 11.5.2006, titled as Dalbir Singh vs Yasin and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with section 120-B IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The allegations against the petitioner is that he is property dealer and through him, the complainant agreed to purchase land from the petitioner's co-accused and paid earnest money. Petitioner is witness to the Criminal Misc. No. M-25017 of 2009 -2- said agreement being mediator and property dealer. However, subsequently, the petitioner got the same land sold to other persons and the said sale deed was also witnessed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner belongs to village of the vendors. However, the contention has been rebutted by learned counsel for the complainant because the petitioner belongs to village Balhera whereas the vendors belong to village Garhi Bharal. There is also no reason why the petitioner would become witness to the agreement of the complainant and also witness of the sale deed in favour of the persons who are said to be resident of Delhi. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner being property dealer got the entire mischief done by getting property sold to subsequent vendee despite being witness to the agreement in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited various judgments in the case of Harpreet Kaur vs State of Punjab and another, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 287, Arun Kumar and another versus State of Punjab and another, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 793 and Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs State of Uttaranchal and others, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 548. However, the said judgments are on the facts of those cases. Keeping in view the role of the petitioner but without commenting anything on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 25, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'