CRM-M-21267-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21267-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:18.11.2011 Surender ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for grant of regular bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.204 dated 26.11.2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. One Arun Aggarwal son of Harish Chander registered the FIR alleging therein that his father were six brothers and three sisters. His father Harish Chander died in the year 2009, uncle Gian Chand died in the year 2005 and aunt Sushma Lata Goyal died in the year 1986. They have 30 acres of land in village Jatu Lohari, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani and all his uncles and aunts live at distant places and as such, they are the absentee landlords. The accused prepared a forged general power of attorney in the name of Ramesh Chander, dated 31.07.2009 at Tehsil Gharghora, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh and on the basis thereof, a sale deed was executed on 27.09.2010 before the Sub Registrar, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani in favour of CRM-M-21267-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: the petitioner. It was alleged that the offence has been committed in connivance with Madan Singh Lambardar of village Jatu Lohari, Inder Singh son of Chandu Lal and Anand Kaushik, Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and himself has been cheated in case the sale deed has been executed on the basis of forged general power of attorney. It is also submitted that he is in custody since 19.04.2011 and as the case is triable by Magistrate, it will take a long time in the conclusion of trial. He has also submitted that co-accused Inder Sngh has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2011 passed in CRM-M-10412-2011. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, has submitted that on 18.07.2011, when the petitioner had contended that he is a bona fide purchaser, the Court had asked him to give prima facie evidence of the payment having been actually made at the time of sale, but till today he has not brought any prima facie evidence much-less disclosing source of the huge amount of `64 lacs which is alleged to have been paid at the time of registration of sale deed. He has further submitted that there is no explanation of the general power of attorney by the persons who have already died prior to its execution and its execution in the State of Chhattisgarh, whereas the property in dispute located in District Bhiwani in Haryana. He also submitted that even if the petitioner is in custody from 19.04.2011 and the case is triable by Magistrate, it would not give any benefit to the petitioner to be released on bail as he is the person who is the direct beneficiary of the deal in which no sale consideration has been paid before the Sub Registrar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. Learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked to explain the source of money which is alleged to have been paid by the petitioner at the time of registration of sale deed in order to prove that he is bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration but he could not give any satisfactory answer except for submitting that his bail application may be considered on the basis of long CRM-M-21267-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] :::::::: custody and that the case is triable by Magistrate. Since the prices of real estate are rising day by day, a new mind set has been developed even in the people living in less developed areas to usurp the property of the absentee landlords with the help of an imposter who would become the seller on the basis of forged general power of attorney and the other person would become the purchaser, without making payment of the sale consideration before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed, to claim the property as bona fide purchaser and to push the real owner in the Civil Court for the purpose of seeking declaration of his legal rights. If the petitioner had paid the huge amount of `64 lacs at the time of execution of sale deed, he could have easily taken the Court into confidence by showing the source from where the money was arranged but nothing has been brought forward which clearly means that just by paying the stamp fee for the purpose of registration of sale deed, the property of the real owner has been usurped by way of a bogus sale deed by two persons who had joined hands as vendor and vendee. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present bail application. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. November 18, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE