In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 18874 of 2011 Decided on Aug 17,2011 Smt.Babli Devi --Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.S.Budhwar,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Sagar Deswal,AAG, Haryana Mr.Sanjay Verma,Advocate, for the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is an application for pre arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.253 dated 22.5.2011 under Sections 406,420,120-B IPC,at Police Station Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Allegations in the FIR are that Ram Diya Verma (complainant) entered into two agreements dated 02.3.2010 and 23.6.2010 with Mehar Singh in order to purchase land measuring 11 Kanal 6 Marla 3 Sarsahi. He paid ` 10,20,000/-by way of cheque and ` 2,75,000/- in cash as earnest money. Mehar Singh (vendor) instead of executing the sale deed, transferred the said land in favour of the petitioner, who happens to be the wife of his younger brother, vide sale deed dated 12.11.2010 for an alleged amount of ` 14,15,000/-. It is further submitted that when he asked for the registration of the sale deed, Mehar Singh gave injuries to him for which he had registered FIR No. 420 dated 12.11.2010 under Sections 323,324,356,506,406,34 IPC at Police Station Sadar in which Mehar Singh was arrested and was sent to jail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. She has three minor children and is not involved in CRM-M- 18874 of 2011 -2- the aforesaid FIR No.420 dated 12.11.2010. He further submits that the main accused, namely Mehar Singh has already been released on regular bail by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondent/State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner and Mehar Singh belong to the same family because the petitioner is his Bhabhi (younger brother's wife). In order to frustrate the agreement entered into by the complainant with Mehar Singh, he had transferred the land in favour of the petitioner without any valuable consideration as no money was paid before the Sub-Registrar. Moreover, it is submitted that the husband of the petitioner had obtained a ration card as a person Below Poverty Line (BPL) and the petitioner has failed to disclose the source of ` 14,15,000/- which is alleged to have been paid to Mehar Singh at the time of execution of the sale deed on 12.11.2010. In order to prove her bonafide, learned counsel for the petitioner has orally submitted that husband of the petitioner is working in Malaysia, who used to come once in a year and has paid this amount to her in cash which has been used by her for the purpose of purchasing the property. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case but without making any observations on merits, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence this petition is hereby dismissed. August 17,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge