CRM No. M 23369 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 23369 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.08.2010 Kuldeep Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. B S Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 154 dated 07.04.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Line Hisar, District Hisar. This is a second anticipatory bail application. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2010 by recording as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser of the plot in question and had paid Rs.40,69,000/- as sale consideration to owner-Amir Chand of the land. The petitioner has also spent Rs.2,03,450/- on the CRM No. M 23369 of 2010 2 stamp duty. However, it is pointed by the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant that, in fact, Amir Chand was dead on the date of sale deed. The present petitioner connived with the other co-accused who by impersonating as Amir Chand entered into sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no evidence or proof of the consideration amount having been paid by the petitioner. In view of the above, the matter needs to be inquired into, for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. No ground for grant is anticipatory bail is made out.” Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the facts as noted in the aforesaid order. Three months have passed from the dismissal of earlier bail application of the petitioner. Obviously, the petitioner is trying his best to evade arrest in one way or the other. No ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 16, 2010 mohan