IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25016 of 2009 Date of decision : September 22, 2009 Harinderpal Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Harinderpal Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 137 dated 23.8.2009 under sections 419, 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dirbha, District Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, petitioner's father Baldev Singh along with Baljit Singh and alleged Lakhwinder Singh (somebody impersonating as Lakhwinder Singh) agreed to sell land 256 kanals 11 marlas to the complainant at the rate of Rs 13,18,000/- per acre and received Rs 74 lacs as earnest money and another amount of Rs 6 lacs was already Criminal Misc. No. M-25016 of 2009 -2- paid to property dealers Savinderpal Singh, Kuljit Singh and Bikar Singh. However, the aforesaid property dealers and vendor had played fraud with the complainant-party as the aforesaid land already stood attached whereas jamabandi showing clear title was shown to the complainant at the time of agreement. When the complainant-party went to the accused-party for getting the sale deed executed, petitioner Harinderpal Singh along with 6/7 other un-known persons allegedly threatened the complainant-party with revolver. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was not even present at the time of agreement and was allegedly involved in subsequent incident of alleged criminal intimidation. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand contended that as per supplementary statement made by the complainant under section 161 Cr.P.C., petitioner Harindrpal Singh was also present at the time of agreement and had shown jamabandi of clear title of the vendors. However, it is not explained as to why the complainant did not mention this fact in the FIR. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the instant petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall comply with the conditions specified in section 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Presently, the petitioner is directed to join investigation on 30.9.2009 at 10.00 AM and continue to do so as and when required by the police. The Criminal Misc. No. M-25016 of 2009 -3- instant order shall remain effective till one month after the filing of charge sheet by the police or till decision of regular bail petition of the petitioner, whichever is earlier. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 22, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'