CRM-M 7623 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM Nos.13955 and 18399 of 2009 and CRM-M 7623 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.9.2009 Sarbjeet Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.DAG Haryana for the State/respondent. Mr.G.P.Singh, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. CRM Nos.13955 and 18399 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case This order shall dispose of two anticipatory bail applications bearing Nos.CRM M-7623 of 2009 titled as Sarbjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another and CRM M-8545 of 2009 titled as Gurmeet Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and another as both the petitions arises out of the same FIR No.114 dated 9.3.2009 registered under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120- B/506 IPC at Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad in which similar arguments have been raised by both the counsel for the parties. The first petition bearing CRM M-7623 of 2009 was filed on 18.3.2009 in which notice of motion was issued on 19.3.2009. The second CRM-M 7623 of 2009 -2- petition bearing CRM M-8545 of 2009 was filed on 26.3.2009 in which at the time of issuance of notice of motion, reliance was placed upon order passed in CRM M-7623 of 2009. The petitioner had filed CRM No.18398 of 2009 in order to place on record income tax return as well as bank statement of Gurmeet Kaur. Similarly, complainant-respondent No.2 has also filed in Court two photocopies of agreement to sell which were taken on record as Mark `X' and Mark 'Y' vide order dated 4.8.2009. The aforesaid FIR has been registered at the instance of Sampurnand. Brief contents of the FIR are that Gurmeet Kaur (petitioner in CRM M-8545 of 2009) was owner in possession of plot No.13, Block BB, Sector B Zone No.B-1118 forming part of Khasra Nos.80/24 and 80/25 in Green Field Colony Faridabad area measuring 670 sq. yards (equivalent to 560.7 Sq. Meters) by way of a registered sale deed No.9969 dated 10.10.2005 alleged to have been executed by Punit Kumar Sakhuja and Mahesh Kumar. Gurmeet Kaur with the consent of Sarbjeet Singh (petitioner) in CRM M-7623 of 2009 entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid property to the complainant (Sampurnand) on 11.10.2005 for a sale consideration of Rs.53 lacs which was paid by Sampurnand against a receipt in the presence of witnesses on the same day and they (Gurmeet Kaur and Sarbjeet Singh) handed over the actual physical possession of the plot to the complainant. As Sarbjeet Singh (petitioner) was engaged in the business of construction, therefore, at his request, the complainant delivered possession of the said plot to him for construction but later on, in order to grab the valuable property of Rs.53 lacs, Gurmeet Kaur sold the property in question to Anwar Alam through General Power of Attorney, registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Sikandrabad in which Sarbjeet Singh and Jagan CRM-M 7623 of 2009 -3- Raj were the attesting witnesses. Since no action was taken by the police on the complaint, therefore, a petition was filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction on the basis of which aforesaid FIR was registered but before the said Court, names of Anwar Aalam who was arrayed as respondent No.3 and Jagan Raj named as respondent No.4 were deleted from the array of the respondents vide order dated 17.2.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. Before coming to this Court, the petitioners had filed their separate bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Court below. Insofar as bail application of Sarbjeet Singh is concerned that was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 16.3.2009 whereas the anticipatory bail application of Gurmeet Kaur was dismissed on 24.3.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the agreement to sell between Gurmeet Kaur and the complainant Sampuranand is dated 11.10.2005 who did not choose to file a suit for specific performance and the limitation had already expired in the month of October 2008. It is further submitted that one Ashok Mittal, who is a Financer, has long business relations with the petitioners whereas respondent No.2/complainant is his employee. At the time when plot bearing No.13, Block BB, Sector B Zone No.B-1118 in Green Field Colony, Faridabad was purchased, a sum of Rs.7 lacs was taken as loan from Ashok Mittal and at that time on one agreement to sell was executed between Gurmeet Kaur and Ashok Mittal for a consideration of Rs.7 lacs and other agreement to sell dated 11.10.2005 was executed between Gurmeet Kaur and complainant/respondent No.2 for a consideration of Rs.53 lacs. It is also alleged that on the said plot, six flats have already been constructed CRM-M 7623 of 2009 -4- covering an area approximately 10000 sq.feet. The flats have been sold floor-wise on power of attorney and the amount has been recovered. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the complainant has given twisted facts in order to involve the petitioners in the present false case. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant has argued that there is a receipt executed by Gurmeet Kaur which has also been signed by Sarbjeet Singh in respect of Rs.53 lacs after the agreement to sell Mark X was executed. Since the payment has been made to Gurmeet Kaur in terms of the agreement to sell Mark X which has been duly witnessed by Sarbjeet Singh and the recovery is yet to be effected, therefore, learned Court below has rightly dismissed the bail application. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observation made herein would not be considered to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 11.9.2009 Judge Meenu