Crl. Misc. No. M-24480 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-24480 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 14, 2010 Jagbir Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner Jagbir Singh seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Nafe Singh alleging that the petitioner had fabricated an agreement to sell dated November 17, 2007 with one of the terms that a sum of Rs.25 lacs had been paid by the petitioner to Nafe Crl. Misc. No. M-24480 of 2010 [2] Singh. The complainant has already sold his property which is subject matter of agreement of sale to third party- Arun Kumar. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already joined investigation and the alleged agreement of sale has already been filed in the civil Court in a suit for possession by specific performance on the basis of the said agreement of sale dated November 17, 2007. It is claimed that the petitioners had obtained an interim injunction order but Nafe Singh sold the property despite an injunction order against him as such he has violated the orders of the civil Court. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. The sons of the complainant seem to have entered into a compromise with Nafe Singh. No money was paid by the petitioner but claiming himself to be a person with right to purchase the property, he has filed a suit for specific performance before the civil Court. It appears to be a case where sons of Nafe Singh have colluded with petitioners and others to grab the property of their father. The intention of petitioner Jagbir Singh to cheat the complainant is apparent from the fact that he has filed a civil suit on the basis of an agreement of sale which prima facie appears to be not genuine. In view of an attempt having been made by the petitioner and the sons of the complainant to grab the property of complainant by preparing false documents, it may not be a case of custodial interrogation but in view of the seriousness of the offence against the petitioner, no extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. The circumstances may warrant the grant of regular bail but no Crl. Misc. No. M-24480 of 2010 [3] reason exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, in view of the seriousness of the offence. Dismissed. December 14, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE