Crl. Misc. No. M-32230 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-32230 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 23, 2011 Amar Nath .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. K. D. S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana with Ms. Upasna Dhawan, Advocate for the complainant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Amar Nath has filed this petition for regular bail in case FIR No.236 dated 31.08.2011, under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner induced the Crl. Misc. No. M-32230 of 2011 2 complainant to purchase six acres land at the rate of Rs.1 crore per acre. It was also told that frontage of the land on the road side was of two acres. However, the frontage was found to be of one acre and value of land was found to be Rs.40 to 50 lacs per acre. The complainant paid Rs.39 lacs in cash to the owners, whereas two cheques of Rs.30 lacs, each given by the complainant to the land owners, were dishonoured. The petitioner is witness to the agreement. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had no role in the matter and he is only witness to the agreement. It was also submitted that in fact, the complainant wanted to earn fast money by agreeing to sell the same land further to one Rajinder at the rate of Rs.1.17 crore per acre, but the said bargain did not materialize and for this reason, the complainant has lodged this false FIR. It was also submitted that it was for the complainant to have verified the market value of the land before entering into the agreement. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, contended that there are also two other FIRs against the petitioner containing allegations of similar nature. It was also submitted that it was the petitioner, who had induced the complainant to purchase the land. Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that cancellation report in one other FIR against the petitioner has been Crl. Misc. No. M-32230 of 2011 3 submitted, whereas the other second FIR was registered after registration of the present FIR. I have carefully considered the matter. The petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2011 i.e. for almost three months. Investigation and trial is likely to take time because petitioner's co-accused, who are the owners of the land, are yet to be arrested. The amount was paid by the complainant to the petitioner's co- accused and not to the petitioner. As regards market value of the land, the complainant should not have relied blindly on the alleged representation by the petitioner before agreeing to purchase the disputed land. Without going into the merits of the case, but keeping in view all circumstances, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra. November 23, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE