Crl.M.No.25558-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.25558-M of 2010 Date of order: 21.9.2010 Bhagwan Singh ....Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) In the instant petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C, petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.105 dated 2.8.2010 under Sections 420/465/471/ IPC, P.S Dera Bassi, SAS Nagar, Mohali. As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner is stated to have cheated the complainant-brothers, namely, Rakesh Kumar Jain and Naresh Kumar Jain by inducing them to pay a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- to him for transferring 41% share in the plot measuring 1430 sq. yards by showing a fake agreement to sell dated 9.10.2008 allegedly executed between the petitioner and owner of the aforesaid plot-Balkar Singh by jacking up the sale consideration to be Rs.1,95,00,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner vide forged agreement to sell dated 9.10.2008 had paid a sum of Rs.50 lacs as earnest money and since he did not have the remaining sale consideration, he had sought to include the complainant as partners in the purchase of the plot from Balkar Singh. It was eventually discovered that for the sale of the Crl.M.No.25558-M of 2010 #2# aforesaid plot, the correct agreement to sell was dated 15.11.2008 between the petitioner and Balkar Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs.95 lacs only. On the last date of hearing, this court had issued notice of motion on the undertaking given by the petitioner that he is ready and willing to return the amount of Rs.20,50,000/- received from the complainants. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the thumb impressions of said Balkar Singh on the alleged agreement to sell dated 9.10.2008 purportedly executed by Balkar Singh in favour of the petitioner are forged one. He further submits that the petitioner has not returned the aforesaid amount to the complainant as per undertaking given by him on 1.9.2010 before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed the inability of the petitioner to return the amount in terms of the undertaking on 1.9.2010 due to the financial position of the petitioner. It is, however, argued that the allegations qua forgery of the agreement dated 9.10.2008 (P.2) are false and that there was no subsequent agreement to sell dated 15.11.2008 with said Balkar Singh. Further contends that the dispute is purely of civil nature and, therefore, no criminal liability ensues. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while declining pre-arrest bail has noticed that the thumb impressions on the agreement to sell dated 9.10.2008 executed by said Balkar Singh in favour of the petitioner are not those of Balkar Singh while recording in its order that the petitioner appears to have forged the aforesaid agreement. In my opinion, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that there are well-founded Crl.M.No.25558-M of 2010 #3# allegations of fraud and cheating against the petitioner. Counsel for the parties heard. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, it is felt that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. September 21, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE