CRM-M-28281 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-28281 of 2011 Date of Decision:14.10.2011 Sohan Lal Arora . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.G.S. Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr.V.Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No.108 dated 23.08.2011 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib. As per contents of the FIR, the land measuring 41 kanal 11 marla was agreed to be sold by the complainant to the petitioner on 3.4.2008 for a sum of `1.5 crore. The petitioner being the prospective vendee gave `30 lacs as earnest money and in a suit for permanent injunction filed by Sohan Lal Arora it was argued that the sale deed would be executed on 20.08.2008. The allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner did not come to the Tehsil for the purpose of registration of the sale deed as he was not ready with the balance sale consideration and forged an affidavit in connivance with Advocate Harsawinder Singh Cheema and Harpool Singh Tehsildar, who had attested his affidavit in order to prove his presence in Tehsil for the purpose of registration of the sale deed. On that account the petitioner has been taken into custody on 24.8.2011 in terms of the aforesaid FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had already filed suit for specific performance because according to him the complainant/seller/vendor did not come present to CRM-M-28281 of 2011 - 2 - the Tehsildar’s office on the date fixed for the purpose of registration of sale deed and in order to avoid the sale of the land due to rise in price they had first lodged the FIR then filed written statement in the Civil Suit. He further submits that in terms of Section 16(C) of the Specific Relief Act, the petitioner has specifically averred in the suit about his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract which is subject matter of dispute in the Civil Suit which shall be decided on the basis of evidence led by parties and the veracity and legality of the affidavit on the basis of which the petitioner has shown his presence on 20.8.2008 would also be established. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued to oppose the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is in the habit of cheating since many complaints along with two FIRs have been registered against him. He further submits that though the Advocate and the Tehsildar have been alleged as accused but they have not been arrested by the Police for the reasons best known to them. He further submits that the petitioner was not having the balance sale consideration on 20.8.2008, therefore, he had forged the affidavit in order to create evidence in the Civil Suit. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had already paid `30 lacs to the complainant and was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract as a result of which he had not only filed Civil Suit for permanent injunction but also filed suit for specific performance. After hearing learned counsel for the parties but without making any observation on the merits, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 14, 2011 JUDGE Vivek