Crl. Misc. No. M-11955 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-11955 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 15, 2011 Lakhbir Singh …..Petitioner Vs. UT Chandigarh and another …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Proxy counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. Mr.T.P.S. Tung, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Lalji Kirpal Singh alleging that the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale in favour of the complainant and he had received a sum of Rs.35 lacs as earnest money but subsequently he did not execute the sale deed on the basis of the agreement of sale. Crl. Misc. No. M-11955 of 2011 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has got a right to seek specific performance of the contract and that the allegations against the petitioners constitute only a civil liability. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. Prima facie, it appears that the dispute is of civil nature but after hearing counsel for the complainant and the State counsel and going through the record it transpires that the petitioner has not only received sum of Rs.35 lacs from the complainant with a promise to sell the property but he has received earnest money for the sale of same property from Avtar Singh, Jaspal Singh and Om Parkash to the tune of Rs.8 lacs, Rs.10 lacs and Rs.43 lacs respectively. He has not executed sale deed in favour of any of the abovesaid persons. The litigation for specific performance of the agreements executed with Avtar Singh and Jaspal Singh are pending. This case was adjourned and fair opportunity was given to the petitioner to amicably settle the dispute with the complainant. It appears that on account of inability of the petitioner to settle the matter with the complainant on return of the earnest money received fraudulently, the matter could not be amicably settled. Irrespective of the said fact, it is apparent that the petitioner from the very beginning had mens rea to cheat the complainant. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. December 15, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-11955 of 2011 [3]