CRM M-20876 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-20876 of 2009 Date of Decision: 31.8.2009 Desh Deepak Singh ....Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG Punjab for the State/respondent. Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) The petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.17 dated 7.2.2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Divn.No.8 (Kailash Chowk), District Ludhiana. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Kamlesh Sharma, who stated that the petitioner has fabricated sale agreement in his name wherein it has been mentioned that the complainant has agreed to sell property measuring 426-2/3 bearing No.B-1-971/1A situated at Vivek Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana under Khewat Khatoni No.125/140, Khasra No.4250/14, 1219/15, 1220/15-16-17-19-20-21-26, 1153/28, 1157/28, 4249/14-1219/15, 1220/15-16-17-19-20-21-26, 1153/28- 1157/28, H.B.No.164 entered in Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, Tehsil CRM M-20876 of 2009 -2- and District Ludhiana. It is further alleged that the complainant had already gifted property measuring 213-1/2 sq.yards to her husband vide Vasika no.5854 dated 18.7.2003, Khatoni No.125/140, Khasra no.4249/14, 2219/15/1220/15-16-17-19-20-21-26, 1153/28-1157/28 entered into Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000. It is further alleged that the complainant had only property measuring 213-1/2 sq.yards adjoining the aforesaid property which was gifted by her to her husband. On these allegations, the complainant has alleged that the petitioner has forged the agreement to sell as she was not present at the time when agreement was executed. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 26.2.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is basically a civil dispute which is being tried to be converted into a criminal case. He further relied upon order passed by the Civil Court. On the other hand, counsel for the State with the assistance of counsel for the complainant has submitted that half of the property has already been mortgaged with State Bank of India, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana by the husband of the complaint who had become the owner by virtue of the sale deed on 18.7.2003. Thus, complainant could not have sold the entire property measuring 426-2/3. It is also submitted that there is no prima-facie proof of the consideration of Rs.15 lacs having been paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. Counsel for the State, on instructions received from ASI Sucha Singh, has submitted that the petitioner is also involved in case registered vide FIR No.8 dated 21.11.2008 under Sections 336/506 IPC at Police CRM M-20876 of 2009 -3- Station Sarabha, Ludhiana. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances coupled with the antecedents of the petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to him. Therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 31.8.2009 JUDGE Meenu