CRM Nos.28559 & 28602 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-28559 of 2010 Ravi Sharma son of Chander Shekhar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-28602 of 2010 Arun Kumar Goyal son of Ved Pal Goyal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- S/Shri Sunil Chadha and Yogesh Goel, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid petitions for anticipatory bail, arising out of the same FIR/case, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioner Ravi Sharma (in CRM No.M-28559 of 2010 and Arun Kumar Goyal (in CRM No.M-27602 of 2010) have applied for the grant of anticipatory bail to them, in the present case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 3. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that petitioners Ravi Sharma and Arun Kumar Goyal suppressed the fact that the house in question stands CRM Nos.28559 & 28602 of 2010 2 mortgaged with the bank as a security, in lieu of loan of Rs.10 lacs and mis- represented the complainant Amit Khanna, who purchased the house in question for a valuable consideration of Rs.8 lacs. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Amit Khanna, the present case was registered against the petitioners and their main-co-accused Harvinder Singh etc., vide FIR No.172 dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Salem Tabri, Distt.Ludhiana. 4. Notice of the petitions was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, both the petitions deserve to be accepted in this context. 6. What is not disputed here is that petitioner Arun Kumar Goyal has also purchased the house in question as such from main accused Harvinder Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 4.5.2007. It is not a matter of dispute that it was main accused Harvinder Singh, who mortgaged the house in question and obtained the loan before selling it to petitioner Arun Kumar Goyal. As to whether the fact of mortgage was in the knowledge of the petitioners or not, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of the trial by the trial Court. Main accused Harvinder Singh appears to have cheated petitioner Arun Kumar Goyal as well, which culminated into the cheating of complainant in this relevant connection. 7. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Harjinder Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. As all the documents have already been taken into possession by the police, therefore, to me, they are no longer required for custodial interrogation at this stage. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. CRM Nos.28559 & 28602 of 2010 3 8. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described 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 of the case, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 10. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 11. The instant petitions are disposed of accordingly. 13.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge