CRM-M-21618-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] ::::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21618-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:20.10.2011 Mukesh Bhadana ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.417 dated 25.12.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Old Faridabad. The allegations in the FIR are that Bishan Dass and Topan Dass had purchased a house measuring 70 square yards from Asha Rani vide registered sale deed dated 01.09.1999. Both of them were unmarried and had no relations. Topan Dass died on 27.05.2004 and Bishan Dass died on 31.07.2007. The petitioner herein alleged to have purchased the said property from Asha Rani on 07.09.2010 for a sum of `5,81,000/-, whereas the complainant has alleged that he is the sole heir of the earlier owners on the basis of a Will dated 29.05.2007. The allegation was thus that in connivance with the vendor Asha Rani, the petitioner has entered into a fictitious transaction in order to claim ownership over the disputed property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is a bona fide purchaser and if any offence is committed, then it was by Asha Rani who has already been released on regular bail by the learned Trial Court. CRM-M-21618-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] ::::::::: During the course of hearing, learned State Counsel had pointed out that the petitioner is a habitual offender who has been involved in five cases but in 4 cases he has been acquitted and in a case registered under Section 307 IPC he has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. On the last date of hearing, the petitioner was asked to show the source of `5,81,000/- in order to prove that he was a bona fide purchaser against a valuable consideration but he did not produce any prima facie evidence to take the Court into confidence about the sale consideration having been paid and the sale deed was not a fictitious document, rather the disclosure statement of Asha Rani was produced on record in which she had alleged that she was persuaded by the petitioner to sell off the property as it has no legal heir after the death of Topan Dass and Bishan Dass. She has also alleged that she has been paid only `1 lac at the time of execution of sale deed and the rest of the amount has not been paid to her till today. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it to be a case where the petitioner can be extended the discretion of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed and the interim order dated 20.07.2011 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. October 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE