IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-16578 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 20.07.2009 Lakhwinder Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the complainant. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has nothing to do with the case and even if on the face of it, as it is being alleged that he is Devinder Singh, property dealer, he has only received Rs.25,000/- and, therefore, without admitting the liability, he is ready and willing to support the investigation and further deposit Rs.25,000/- with the investigating Agency. Counsel further submits that even if the petitioner is treated to be the property dealer, then also he cannot be accused of the offence since both the parties were merely introduced by him and with open eyes and on verification of the documents, the parties had entered into an agreement. He, on this basis, submits that he is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in view of the fact that he has already joined the investigation. Crl.Misc.No.M-16578 of 2009 -2- On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the complainant has been identified by petitioner as Devinder Singh-property dealer which he had introduced himself. The money and the transactions were held in the presence of the petitioner and he was separately handed over Rs.25,000/- as his commission. Counsel further submits that in Crl.Misc.No.M-16028 of 2009 wherein the bail application of the other co- accused has been dismissed by this Court, there also the petitioners had impersonated and played a fraud with the complainant where a total amount of Rs.30 lacs was taken from the complainant. In view of the fact that the petitioner has impersonated himself as a property dealer with the name of Devinder Singh and having been identified by the complainant, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be essential to verify the details and the basis for proceeding with such a fraud against the complainant. Dismissed. July 20, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE