CRM No. M-7435 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-7435 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.05.2009 Jasvinder Singh @ Jasminder Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner Jasvinder Singh @ Jasminder Singh has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him under Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 109 IPC at Police Station Shahbad, District Kurukshetra, vide FIR No.436 dated 11th December, 2008. The complainant preferred a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, who directed investigation in the matter. The allegation levelled therein was that the complainant and his co-vendees wanted to purchase 15 to 20 acres of agricultural land. For this purpose, they contacted accused Joginder and Mohinder property dealers. The said property dealers were instrumental in fetching a deal for the complainant and his co-vendees. It was CRM No. M-7435 of 2009 2 decided that 15 acres of land would be purchased in village Lakhmari @ Rs.18.00 lacs per acre. The complainant parted with approximately Rs.30.00 lacs for purchase of land. Part of this amount was taken by the petitioner. However, the entire deal turned out to be bogus. The investigating agency found that the accused had cheated the complainant and his co-vendees in collusion with each other and had resorted to impersonation, cheating, fabrication and forgery of documents in the entire transaction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute is civil in nature and no role, whatsoever, has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He has submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. According to the counsel, specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the case and armed with a protective order, it is not likely that he shall cooperate with the investigating agency. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The allegations in the FIR are serious in nature. It appears that the petitioner and his co-accused acted in collusion with each other and by fabricating number of documents succeeded in cheating the complainant and his co-vendees of Rs.30.00 lacs. The allegations appear to be serious in nature. CRM No. M-7435 of 2009 3 Under the circumstances, no case is made out for granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His custodial interrogation may be necessary for unfolding the entire modus operandi of the accused in committing the crime. There is no merit in the petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE May 11, 2009 'rajpal'