CRM-M-37221 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-37221 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: January 05, 2012 Mahabir Singh Hooda ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 & 3 in a case registered against respondents No.2 to 4, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472, 120-B & 420 IPC, at Police Station Palm Vihar Gurgaon, vide FIR No.174 dated 18th May, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that anticipatory bail was granted vide orders, Annexure P-12 and P-13 despite the fact that no FIR had been registered by that time. This apart, the respondents No.2 to 3 failed to cooperate with the investigating agency and thus, proper investigation could not be conducted. Learned State counsel submitted that present petition has been preferred by the complainant and not by the State of Haryana. According to him, investigation had been conducted in right earnest and CRM-M-37221 of 2010 2 taken to its logical end. According to him, the respondents No.2 & 3 joined investigation on various dates and remained cooperative with the investigating agency. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4 opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail. He submitted that parameters laid down in Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. are not made out in the present case. He submitted that trial court was justified in granting bail at the stage when FIR had not been registered. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Allegations of the petitioner is that on 2nd August, 2005 respondent No.3 executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of plot No.UST-4, measuring 1247 sq. yards, situated in the revenue estate of village Babupur, District Gurgaon. Thereafter, possession letter was given on payment of Rs.3,74,100/- by respondent No.3 in presence of witnesses. An agreement to sell was entered into between respondents No.2 & 3 on 21st April, 2005. On the basis of agreement to sell/GPA, respondent No.2 sold the plot to one Raj Kumar who further sold it to one Devender (respondent No.4 herein). The petitioner purchased the plot from respondent No.4 at a price of Rs.49,88,000/- on 14th August, 2008 after paying advance sum of Rs.20,000/-. Balance was paid on 3rd September, 2008 which included a cheque of Rs.7.00 lacs. However, when the petitioner wanted to get the plot transferred in his favour, a communication was sent by Sub CRM-M-37221 of 2010 3 Registrar, Gurgaon to Sub Registrar, Narwar (M.P.) where General Power of Attorney in question was registered for confirmation of the GPA. The Sub Registrar, Narwar (M.P.) sent the reply that no such GPA was registered on 22nd August, 2005. Later petitioner came to know that plot had already been sold by respondent No.2 to one Subhash Chand Chopra vide sale Wasika No.8685 dated 7th July, 2008. Resultantly, instant complaint was lodged. Immediately, after the complaint was lodged, the accused preferred application for pre-arrest bail. The Sessions Judge, Gurgaon granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 on 29th March, 2010. The application of respondent No.3 was accepted on 21st April, 2010 with the observation that the case was based on documentary evidence, for which custodial interrogation of the accused would not be necessary. The stand of the investigating agency before this court is that the accused joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. Thus, it was able to take the investigation to its logical end and submit the charge-sheet. Under the circumstances, this court would refrain from interfering in the impugned orders at this stage. However, in case prosecuting agency finds at any stage that accused are trying to influence and/or threaten the complainant/witnesses, it shall be entitled to move appropriate application before the court below. Before parting with the judgment, this court deems it necessary to observe that anticipatory bail was granted at a stage when case had not been registered. It was not known to the court under which CRM-M-37221 of 2010 4 offences FIR would be registered. At best, protection could have been afforded to the accused to enable them to approach the court after registration of FIR. To grant complete immunity before registration of FIR, may amount a blanket bail as offences likely to be included therein are not known. Keeping in view the stand of the investigating agency, however, that accused cooperated during investigation and the fact that trial has proceeded thereafter, this court does not deem it appropriate to interfere. Disposed of in above terms. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 05, 2012 'rajpal'