CRM-M-28148 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-28148 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION:12.11.2009 **** Kapil Sood . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Haryana and another . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Amar Nath, complainant in person. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.71 dated 22.7.2009 registered under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula. During the course of hearing, on the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Amar Nath son of Narata Ram, r/o village Baddh, Tehsil Kalka District Panchkula was impleaded as respondent No.2, who is present in person. In brief, the allegations against the petitioner are that on the pretext of sending son of the complainant to New Zealand, the petitioner had got a General Power of Attorney executed in his favour and in lieu of Rs.3 lacs, which were likely to be incurred for sending the son of the complainant to New Zealand, sold his property to some other person but neither his son was sent abroad nor the money, which was received by selling his land was given to the complainant. The petitioner, apprehending his arrest, filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula, which was dismissed on 7.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, argued that the complainant and his son offered to sell some land of Uttami Devi and Barjinder to the CRM-M-28148 of 2009 - 2 - petitioner and had taken some advance. The complainant got an agreement executed in his favour by the said persons and when the petitioner asked for original documents, the complainant told that the said owners were demanding more money. It is further alleged that the complainant instead offered to sell his own land measuring 14 biswas. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that on the pretext of sending the son of the complainant to New Zealand, General Power of Attorney was got executed by the petitioner whereas the other documents of the said land of Uttami Devi and Barjinder have been fabricated. It was further argued that the petitioner had entered into a compromise with the complainant on 28.6.2009 and agreed to sell his equivalent land situated in village Tipra within two months. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the genuineness of the agreement and other documents are still to be verified and there is a compromise that has been entered into by the petitioner with the complainant, which prima facie shows his complicity, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and hence the same is hereby dismissed. It is, however made clear that any observation made herein may not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 12, 2009 JUDGE vivek