CRM No. M-6179 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-6179 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.05.2011 Sikandar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. H.S. Saggu, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.16 dated 3.2.2010 under Sections 420/419 IPC, Police Station City Dhuri, District Sangrur. As per prosecution story, an FIR was lodged by Rajinder Kaur – wife of the present petitioner/accused – stating that accused has got plot transferred in his favour by impersonating a lady as his wife while, in fact, complainant Rajinder Kaur – wife of the petitioner – has never executed any sale deed in favour of the accused. This Court vide order dated 3.3.2010 has granted interim anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. On 2.7.2010 learned State Counsel had stated before this Court that petitioner is not disclosing the name of the lady, who has executed the sale deed in his favour of the plot of the complainant. On 2.7.2010 itself, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that petitioner is ready to disclose all the facts to the Investigating Officer. On 9.8.2010 again learned State Counsel had reported that petitioner did not join the investigation nor disclosed the name of the actual lady, who was made to impersonate by him as the CRM No. M-6179 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant. Thereafter on the request of the learned counsel for the parties matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of compromise between the parties. On 3.3.2011 and on 19.4.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to seek instructions as to whether petitioner is ready to re-convey the title in faovur of the complainant/wife. Today learned counsel for the petitioner states that accused/petitioner is not willing to re-convey the title of the plot to the complainant and is ready to pay Rs.10 lacs to the complainant in lieu of the plot got transferred in his favour. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that offer of Rs.10 lacs in lieu of plot which was got transferred by the accused, is not acceptable to the complainant. He has opposed the bail application. Having considered totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having taken into consideration the non-co-operative attitude of the accused and considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. In the opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation of accused seems to be justified to know the whereabouts of the lady who has impersonated herself as the complainant and has executed the deed in favour of the accused of the plot belonging to the complainant. Dismissed. Order dated 3.3.2010 stands revoked. (Alok Singh) Judge May 23, 2011 R.S.