CRM Nos.M-18872, 20168 & 22674 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-18872 of 2010 Jora Singh alias Baljit Singh & Jittee alias Gurjit Singh ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-20168 of 2010 Gurnaib Singh son of Jethu Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 3. CRM No.M-22674 of 2010 Gurmit Singh and Labh Singh ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Date of Decision: 20.9.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- S/Shri Rajinder Goyal, Sanjeev Kumar Bawa and Gurcharan Dass, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As common questions 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. However, for facilitation, the facts have been extracted from CRM No.M-18872 of 2010. 2. The matrix of the facts, which need a necessary mention for deciding CRM Nos.M-18872, 20168 & 22674 of 2010 2 the limited core question in these petitions and emanating from the record, is that the present case was registered against the accused on the complaint of one Jagmohan Singh with the allegations that they induced and allured him to purchase the property in village Tool Banjara, District Sangrur. Accordingly, a deal was settled at Rs.19 lacs per acre and agreement to sell dated 7.3.2009 was executed. At the time of execution of the agreement, accused Labh Singh, Zora Singh and Jeeti received Rs.60 lacs as earnest money, while the remaining amount was agreed to be paid by him at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 31.10.2009. On that day, Dalvir Singh vendor showed his inability to register the sale deed and thus, the date was extended to 8.1.2010. On that day, the complainant appeared in the office of Sub Registrar to get executed and registered the sale deed alongwith the remaining sale consideration, but vendor Dalvir Singh did not turn up to execute and register the sale deed. The complainant approached the accused and requested them to prevail upon Dalvir Singh to execute the sale deed, but in vain. Ultimately, he refused to execute and register the sale deed. 3. Concisely, according to the complainant, since the accused did not prevail upon Dalvir Singh vendor to execute the sale deed despite receipt of earnest money, so, they have cheated him in this regard. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of Jagmohan Singh complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.116 dated 4.6.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur, in the manner descibed here-in-above. 4. Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioners Jora Singh and Jittee (in CRM No.M-18872 of 2010), Gurnaib Singh (in CRM No.M-20168 of 2010) and Gurmit Singh and another (in CRM No.M-22674 of 2010), have applied for the grant of anticipatory bail to CRM Nos.M-18872, 20168 & 22674 of 2010 3 them, in the present case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 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, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. While issuing notice of motion, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajan Gupta, J.) passed the following order on 14.7.2010:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are neither beneficiaries nor witnesses or signatories to the agreement to sell. He further submits that petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency in every manner. Learned State counsel submits that petitioners be directed to join the investigation forthwith. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the petitioners shall join investigation forthwith. However, in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:- (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer 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 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. To come up on 11.08.2010.” 7. As is evident from the record that the only allegations against the petitioners are that they did not compel Dalvir Singh vendor to execute the sale deed. Therefore, they cheated him and committed the indicated offence. The learned State counsel, on the instructions of SI Bhupinder Singh, has stated that the CRM Nos.M-18872, 20168 & 22674 of 2010 4 petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The matter appears to be, of non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, is a civil dispute. All the documents have been taken into possession by the police from the complainant. All 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 like case. 8. So, taking into consideration the totality of the 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 of the case, these petitions for anticipatory bail are allowed. 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 state 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. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 20.9.2010 Judge AS