Criminal Misc. No.M-31715 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-31715 of 2008 Date of decision : 19.12.2008 Bhagwan Dass .....Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hamenat Bassi, Advocate for the U.T.Chandigarh. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for respondent no.2. S. D. ANAND, J. The plea for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner herein was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated 4.10.2008 (Annexure P-9). Till that time the, allegations against the petitioner pertained to the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Thereafter, offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC came to be added. The petitioner applied for the grant of anticipatory bail for those offences as well. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, noticed that the petitioner herein was guilty of having concealed certain relevant facts from the Court. In that view of things, the anticipatory bail plea was rejected. The petitioner has filed the present petition for obtaining the invalidation of the impugned orders. For enabling appropriate appreciation of the controversy, it Criminal Misc. No.M-31715 of 2008 -2- **** would be useful to notice the facts in the first instance. The petitioner herein and Ramesh Kumar are siblings. The plot under reference stands in the name of Ramesh Kumar. Petitioner herein is General Power of Attorney on behalf of Ramesh Kumar. Petitioner agreed to sell that plot ( No. 35 Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh), vide agreement dated 14.12.2005, to respondent No. 2 Rohit Kumar. The total agreed sale consideration was Rs.75 lacs. The petitioner herein agreed to sell that plot on the premise that he is owner thereof as he had purchased it from his brother Ramesh Kumar. It transpired in investigation that the agreement, on the basis of which the petitioner herein made the claim of title, was found to be forged. Ramesh Kumar took a stand to the effect that he had never entered into any agreement to sell that plot to the petitioner herein. Mr. R.S.Bains, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the complainant/vendee has already filed a civil suit for the recovery of the balance due amount. The suit is not for specific performance of the agreement. There is no averment in the course thereof that the impugned agreement was forged. The filing of a suit for recovery, the argument proceeds, is squarely indicative of the fact that the complainant/vendee did not make an averment at any earlier stage that impugned agreement, as between the petitioner herein and his brother Ramesh Kumar, was forged. Learned counsel proceeds to argue that affidavit in the context had been obtained from Ramesh Kumar under pressure and, infact, he too had at no stage averred the agreement to be forged. It is argued that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.75 lacs, a sum of Rs. 25 lacs was retained by the petitioner herein and he handed over the balance amount of Rs.50 lacs to his brother Ramesh Chand. Criminal Misc. No.M-31715 of 2008 -3- **** Mr.Puneet Bali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, argues that the petitioner herein had cheated the complainant who is yet to recover the balance amount of Rs.50 lacs. In support of the averment that the impugned agreement is forged, it is argued that Ramesh Kumar had given an affidavit to that effect. It is also argued that the plot under reference had actually fallen to the share of a sister (of the petitioner herein and Ramesh Kumar) in a family settlement. It is otherwise not disputed that the averred family settlement has not yet been effectuated in the record and Ramesh Kumar continues to be recorded in the record to be owner of the plot. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the impugned order cancelling the anticipatory bail cannot be upheld, particularly when the entire documentation is available to the Investigating Agency which can, in the light thereof, take whatever steps are thought appropriate to prove the charge against the petitioner herein at the trial. The petition filed by the petitioner Bhagwan Dass shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure P-12) shall stand set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner by the arresting officer, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:- i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. December 19, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE