IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.406 of 2009 Date of decision: 4.6.2009 Mohinder Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner has filed application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No.64 of 2009 dated 19.5.2009 registered at Police Station, Gagret under Sections 420, 462, 467 and 468 IPC. Heard and perused the record. 2. The complainant Virender Kumar had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the case against the petitioner and on 18.5.2009 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb ordered that the investigation in the case is necessary and directed Station House officer, Gagret for registration of the case and investigation, accordingly FIR No.64 of 2009 was registered. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… 3. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that he agreed to purchase the land more specifically detailed in the complaint for a consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-. On 26.3.2009 an agreement was executed between the parties and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid to the petitioner. The petitioner agreed to register the sale deed on or before 31.8.2009. The possession of the land was handed over by the complainant to the petitioner from the date of execution of the agreement dated 26.3.2009. On 17.5.2009 the complainant had come to know that the petitioner had earlier sold the same land to one Ashwani Arora and he received a sum of Rs.5,36,000/- from the said Ashwani Arora, who had filed a civil suit against the petitioner for not transferring the land by way of alienation, agreement etc. The Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No.I, had also restrained the petitioner from alienating the land in question. The petitioner had the knowledge that he has no power to sell the land in question to anyone. The petitioner despite the previous agreement dated 6.1.2007 with Ashwani Arora intentionally received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for selling the land, the petitioner has thus cheated the complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance of the direction of this Court the petitioner has joined the investigation and this fact has not been denied by the Ld. Assistant Advocate General on instructions received from the Police Officer, who came to assist him in the Court. It has been stated on behalf of the respondent that recoveries have been made during investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is …3… ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the direction of this Court. In the status report it has been stated that the handwriting and signatures of the petitioner are to be taken. The learned Assistant Advocate General has opposed the bail application. But no specific ground has been taken in the status report for opposing the bail application. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. It appears that the case is primarily based upon the documents. In view of nature of the case, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the present case more particularly when no specific ground for opposing the bail application have been taken in the status report. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., accordingly application is allowed and the petitioner in the event of arrest is ordered to be released on bail by Arresting Officer in FIR No. 64 of 2009 dated 19.5.2009 registered at Police Station, Gagret under Sections 420, 462, 467 and 468 IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. It is made clear that petitioner shall co-operate for giving his specimen hand writings and signatures to the Investigating officer, if required and he shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. Copy Dasti June 4, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.