IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl.Misc.No.M-33271 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: April 25, 2011 Karnail Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents 2. Crl.Misc.No.M-844 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: April 25, 2011 Makhan Singh alias Baljinder Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-33271/2010 Mr.Yogesh Goel and Mr.Deepak Goyal, Advocates for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-844 of 2011 Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This order will dispose of above-mentioned two petitions filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under sections 420/120-B IPC vide FIR No.234 dated 11.10.2010 at police station Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana City. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that petitioners are not involved in the commission of crime in any manner. While Karnail Singh is stated to be owner of the property in question Makhan Singh is stated to have acted as a mediator. According to learned counsel, dispute is basically of civil nature and thus, petitioners are entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Crl.Misc.Nos.M-33271/2010 & M-844/2011 - 2 – Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that petitioner Karnail Singh received an amount of Rs.17,41,000/- as full and final payment of the property in question, but later on sold the same property to two other persons, namely, Tarsem Singh and Mamta. Mamta is stated to be sister of accused Makhan Singh. He submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. Heard. It is evident that allegations against the petitioners are that they have duped the vendee of the plot measuring 200 sq. yards situated in the area of Kokowal, New Gagandeep Colony, Ludhiana, of Rs.17,41,000/- and after having received complete payment of the plot in question, they sold the same to two other persons. One of the persons to whom the plot was sold is Mamta, who is stated to be sister of Makhan Singh (petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M- 844/2011). In view of nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioners are not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petitions are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. April 25, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE