In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. C'RM-M20249 of 2009(O&M) Decided on Aug 10,2009. Harvinder Pal Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KJMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh,Sr.Advocate,with Mr.Ajay Singla,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Partap Singh,SrDAG,Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in case registered vide FIR No.116 dated 11.7.2009 under Sections 406,420,506 IPC at Police Station, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala City. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Sanjay Goyal. The allegations are that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell on 26.9. 2007 with the complainant and his wife for sale of his house bearing No. 326, situated at Mahesh Nagar,Ambala Cantt, for a consideration of Rs. 28,50,000/-. A sum of Rs. 2 lacs was paid on 26.9.2007 as earnest money. A sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- was to be paid on 15.10.2007. The sale deed was to be executed on 10.6.2009. The complainant and his wife waited for the petitioner in the office of Sub Registrar, with Rs.6 lacs towards balance amount, but the C'RM-M20249 of 2009(O&M -2- accused/petitioner did not come present. Later on, it came to the notice of the complainant that the petitioner has sold the house in question to one Yogesh Goyal for a sum of Rs. 31 lacs. It is pertinent to mention here that before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ambala, which was dismissed on 20.7.2009. Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has placed reliance upon Annexure P-5. As against this, learned State Counsel has argued that as per the police record, the petitioner has signed the agreement to sell as well as the receipt, as per which, Rs.22 lacs had been paid to him which are still to be recovered. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail petition is hereby dismissed. August 10,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge