CRM-M 22947 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Sept 09,2009. Taranjit Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.O.P.Kamboj,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Ramandeep Singh,Advocate,for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) apprehending his arrest in case registered vide FIR No. 264 dated 01.7.2009 under Sections 420/120-B IPC at Police Station, Kharar, District Mohali. In brief, the allegations contained in the FIR are that one Karora Singh father of Manjit Singh (non-applicant) was owner of the land in question which was acquired for SYL in the year 1991. Said Karora Singh had received the compensation. He later on died, but some how or the other, the mutation of the land in question could not be entered in favour of Canal Department. Manjit Singh (non-applicant) knew about the acquisition. He gave General Power of Attorney to Taranjit Singh (petitioner) on 8.1.2007, who entered into CRM-M 22947 of 2009 2 an agreement with the complainant Ranjit Singh to sell 3 ½ marlas of land for a show room situated in Mundi Kharar, District Mohali for a consideration of Rs. 25 lacs and received Rs. 10 lacs towards earnest money. Similarly on 3.6.2008, he again agreed to sell the adjoining show room site of the same size to the complainant and received Rs.10 lacs towards part payment. Thus, the petitioner received Rs.20 lacs from the complainant. When the complainant came to know about cheating, he asked the petitioner to return the aforesaid amount. The petitioner gave cheque of Rs. 20 lacs to the complainant but it was dishonoured. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Mohali on 28.7.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CRM-M21015 of 2009 for anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn to file better petition vide order dated 06.8.2009. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though the petitioner was a general power of attorney for the land belonging to Manjit Singh, but he is not beneficiary. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner had taken Rs.20 lacs from the complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner had returned the said amount through cheque but the same was dishonoured. He also submitted that the petitioner is involved in many other cases. At present, recovery of Rs.20 lacs is to be effected. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances in which cheating at the hands of the petitioner is writ large, who had taken Rs. 20 lacs from the complainant on CRM-M 22947 of 2009 3 the pretext that the property in question is free from all encumbrance, and when the petitioner was confronted, he returned the said amount by way of cheque which has already been dishonoured, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and the same is hereby dismissed. However, nothing observed herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on merits. Sept 09,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge