Criminal Misc. No.M-17252 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No.M-17252 of 2008 (O&M). Date of decision : 21.7.2008. Subhash Saharan ..... Petitioner. vs. State of Haryana ..... Respondent. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal. Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Ghengas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for anticipatory bail in FIR no. 455 dated 30.6.2008 registered under Sections 148, 149, 452, 380, 323, 506 IPC, at Police Station City, Sirsa. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR in question contains false and fabricated allegations against the petitioner. In fact, the complainants had sold the house to one Roop Chand vide agreement to sell dated 21.4.2008 and possession of part of the property was delivered whereas possession of part of that with tenant was agreed to be handed over after the settlement of dispute with the tenant. The dispute arose for the reason that due to rise in the price and value of the property, the complainant agreed to sell the property vide agreement dated 23.5.2008 for a sum of Rs. 87 lacs with another person as against the earlier agreement for a consideration of Rs. 58 lacs with Roop Chand. The allegations that the petitioner had taken away cash, jewellery and medical apparatus, etc. cannot be believed for the reason that the complainants are residing at Patiala and Delhi whereas the property is situated at Sirsa. Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that agreement dated 21.4.2008 projected by the petitioner with Roop Chand is a Criminal Misc. No.M-17252 of 2008 2 fabricated document, as no agreement was entered into by the complainants with Roop Chand. Infact, Roop Chand is not available. One of the witnesses to the agreement to sell Naresh Kumar stated that he had never signed the agreement in the presence of parties. The second witness was not available. There is no receipt of Rs. 38 lacs allegedly paid by Roop Chand to the complainants. The petitioner in the present petition is not party to the agreement rather he is a property dealer who allegedly got the deal entered into between the parties. In fact, the petitioner did not have any authority to remove material from the house. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner who is not even party to the agreement but was still found removing material from the house of the complainants, without commenting on the merits of the case, lest it may affect the case of the either party, I do not find this is to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. 21.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge