In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 20297 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on Aug 12,2009. Tehal Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.72 dated 22.5.2009 under Sections 420, 467,468,471,120-B IPC at Police Station. Julkan, District Patiala. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that he executed an agreement to sell dated 29.2.2000 in favour of the complainant for sale of land measuring 4 kanals 17 marla comprised in Khewat Khatoni Nos. 370,371 and 372 and received Rs.50,000/- as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on 16.5.2000, but with an intention to cheat, the petitioner forging the agreement to sell dated 29.2.2000 sold the said land on 25.5.2000 to Gurbachan Singh in connivance with Balwinder Singh, a witness and Satinder Bajaj, Deed Writer. CRM-M20297 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid FIR and before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed on 16.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Gurbachan Singh and Balwinder Singh have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2009 passed in CRM-M 17189 of 2009 and CRM-M 18175 of 2009 respectively and the role of the petitioner is not different from them. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I do not find it to be a fit case for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner because perpetrator of the offence is the petitioner who had taken Rs.50,000/- as earnest money from the complainant and has still sold the land to Gurbachan Singh by forging the agreement to sell on a date prior to the date on which the land was agreed to be sold by the petitioner to the complainant. Since the recovery is yet to be effected and the offence is quite serious, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and hence the same is hereby dismissed. Aug 12,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge