Crl. Misc. No. M-24051 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-24051 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.8.2010 Sukhninder Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. PBS Goraya, Advocate for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 420, 447, 506 IPC at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar, vide FIR No.73 dated 22nd July, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 and the complainant were co-sharers of the land in question. Petitioner No.2 sold 01 Kanals 19 Marlas while total land of his share comes to 03 Kanals 05 Marlas. He submits that the petitioner is, thus, not guilty of any offence of cheating or fraud. This contention has, however, been refuted by the learned State counsel (on the instructions from S.I. Jagir Singh, who is present in court), who submits that Khasra No.316, which fell to the share of the Crl. Misc. No. M-24051 of 2010 2 complainant as a result of family settlement, Annexure P-5, was sold by petitioner No.2 to petitioner No.1. According to him, petitioner No.2 knew that the land in question had actually gone to the share of the complainant as a result of agreement, Annexure P-5 and petitioner No.1 purchased the same knowing that the ownership of the same was with the complainant. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The contention of the State counsel has been reiterated by the counsel appearing for the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that allegation against the petitioner is that he sold that part of the land which had fallen to the share of the complainant as a result of the family settlement. In view of seriousness of allegations in the FIR, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 24.8.2010 'rajpal'