Crl. Misc. No.M-35918 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35918 of 2011 Date of Decision : 16th December, 2011 Sadhu Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Sadhu Singh has filed instant petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.87 dated 25.09.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Banur, District Patiala. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, Mr. Manmohan Sharma, SP, Rajpura (Supervisory Officer) is present along with Gurjit Singh, SHO. It is stated by them that on the preceding date of hearing, HC Baljinder Singh, who is also present in person today in the Court, was sent to assist the State counsel in this case, but he had noted wrong number of the case and therefore he could not contact the State counsel. Accordingly all these three police officials are discharged. According to prosecution version, the petitioner received Rs.7 lacs from the complainant for sending him to Japan but the complainant was not sent to Japan nor the money was returned to him. Petitioner executed Crl. Misc. No.M-35918 of 2011 -2- agreement dated 02.06.2010 to sell immovable property to the complainant but it transpired later on that the petitioner is not owner of the said property and rather his wife is owner thereof. During enquiry it was also revealed that the petitioner had furnished affidavit dated 08.06.2011 undertaking to repay Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.06.2011 and Rs.2,14,000/- on 05.07.2011 to the complainant but did not even pay the same. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the application made by the complainant to the police, he did not mention that he had paid the money to the petitioner for sending him abroad, but mentioned only about the agreement to sell. However, it transpired during enquiry that the money was initially paid to the petitioner for sending the complainant abroad. Even if this fact is ignored, the petitioner allegedly executed agreement to sell the land of which he was not owner but his wife was owner. Contention of the petitioner's counsel that petitioner did not execute the said agreement cannot be accepted at this stage. In this context it is added that the petitioner allegedly affirmed affidavit dated 08.06.2011 to pay Rs.3,64,000 to the complainant, but did not pay the same, providing some prima facie corroboration to the version of the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. 16th December, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) 'raj' JUDGE