CRM No.M-31721 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-2.12.2010 Jagjit Singh son of late Gurbachan Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Anil Mehta, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Jagjit Singh son of late Gurbachan Singh, has applied for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co- accused, namely, Harminder Kaur and Jai Pal Singh etc., vide FIR No.220 dated 30.7.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Payal, Distt.Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that Harminder Kaur, widow of Gurbachan Singh, mother of the petitioner, was the owner of the land in question. She executed the agreement dated 16.4.2009 to sell her land in favour of complainant Hardev Singh and received the earnest money. As per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed and registered on or before 14.10.2009. According to the complainant that on 22.11.2009, the vendor has alienated the land in question in order to deceive him. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Hardev Singh, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. CRM No.M-31721 of 2010 2 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 5. What is not disputed here is that the agreement to sell was executed by the mother of the petitioner. The only allegations against him are that his mother agreed to sell the land with the connivance of the petitioner. No other role or overt act is attributed to the petitioner. The dispute appears to be purely of civil nature. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 21.8.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. The petitioner is a first offender and there is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. As even police did not submit the challan, therefore, the conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the period of detention of the petitioner, no other role or overt act is attributed to him and totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, to me, he is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. 2.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge