IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-2991 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.2.2011 Sanjeev Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …. Respondent Present: Mr. DPS Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 23.9.2010 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Rama Dutta. The complainant had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner and his wife. The wife of the petitioner namely Neerja Aggarwal and petitioner are the owners of house No.790, Sector 28, Faridabad. They had agreed to sell the said house to the complainant Rama Dutta and his wife Smt. Sonia Dutta. The said agreement was entered into through Sh. R.K. Sharma, Property Dealer. The sale consideration was settled at a sum of `72,00,000/- and a sum of `41,50,000/- was paid as earnest money in cash as well as through cheque. The possession of the property was given to the complainant. According to the complainant, the seller had alleged that the property was free from encumbrances. However, in fact the property was CRM No. M-2991 of 2011 [2] under mortgage. Therefore, the sale deed could not be executed by S.K. Aggarwal (petitioner) and he kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. He failed to execute the sale deed and the complainant was cheated. A civil suit seeking specific performance of the agreement is pending between the petitioner and the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the proceedings in the trial of the case have been stayed in respect of the son of the petitioner. It is submitted that the complainant has already filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell against the petitioner and his wife which is pending. The petitioner was earlier granted interim bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad. However, due to ill-health, the petitioner could not surrender within stipulated time. Thereafter, he has been arrested. The wife of the petitioner, it is submitted, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.1.2011 (Annexure P3). In response, learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant have submitted that the petitioner is habitual in absenting himself from the trial and not appearing in the case. It is submitted that despite issuance of warrants of arrest at his given address i.e. Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh. Raghu Nandan Saran, resident of H.No.470, sector-37, Faridabad, the warrants remained unexecuted. Besides, a reference has been made to various acts of the petitioner whereby he has avoided his appearances. Be that as it may, it may be noticed that the petitioner is now in custody since 18.1.2011. His further CRM No. M-2991 of 2011 [3] custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. The trial in the case has been stayed qua son of the petitioner. The trial in the case against the petitioner is likely to take time. The prosecution is to establish and prove its case. The case is triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. The complainant has also filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell. It is to be ascertained as to whether the case is of a civil nature only. The apprehension of the learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is likely to abscond can be safeguarded by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court shall be admitted to bail. The petitioner shall also furnish his complete address where he can be contacted. In case the said address is to be changed then due intimation in this regard shall be furnished in the trial Court. Besides, he shall furnish his mobile phone number on which he can be contacted. He shall also file an undertaking that he shall not change his mobile number or make it inoperative during trial. In case it is to be changed, he shall duly inform the trial Court. (S.S. SARON) February 10, 2011 JUDGE amit