CRM Nos.M-30336 & 31356 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-30336 of 2010 Harminder Kaur widow of late Gurbachan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-31356 of 2010 Jai Pal Singh son of Bant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Date of Decision:-2.12.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Anil Mehta, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, vide this common order, in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Petitioners Harminder Kaur widow of Gurbachan Singh and Jai Pal Singh son of Bant Singh, have filed the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, alongwith their other co- accused, namely, Jagjit Singh etc., by virtue of FIR No.220 dated 30.7.2010 for the commission of the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC by CRM Nos.M-30336 & 31356 of 2010 2 the police of Police Station Payal, Distt.Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 3. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that Harminder Kaur, widow of Gurbachan Singh, was the owner of the land in question. She agreed to sell the same to complainant Hardev Singh, vide agreement to sell dated 16.4.2009 and received the earnest money. As per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed and registered on or before 14.10.2009. According to the complainant that on 22.11.2009, the vendor has again alienated the land in question in order to deceive him. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Hardev Singh, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this context. 6. At the very outset, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Lakhwinder Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from them. 7. What is not disputed here is that petitioner Harminder Kaur executed the agreement to sell the land in question on 16.4.2009 in favour of the complainant. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 14.10.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended with some amount of vehemence that since the complainant did not perform his part of contract and did not get executed and registered the sale deed on or before 14.10.2009, then the vendor was free to re-sell her land on 22.11.2009 and no offence is made out against the petitioners. CRM Nos.M-30336 & 31356 of 2010 3 8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant urged that it was the petitioner-vendor, who did not fulfill her part of contract on or before 14.10.2009, so she is guilty in this relevant connection. Whether petitioner Harminder Kaur or the complainant did not perform their respective parts of contract, would be the moot point to be decided by the civil Court. 9. Be that as it may, once the sale deed in question was not executed in pursuance of the agreement to sell on or before 14.10.2009, in that eventuality, it is doubtful that re-selling her land by petitioner Harminder Kaur, after the expiry of due date, would attract the penal provisions of the indicated offences. Hence the dispute appears to be of civil nature and as nothing is to be recovered form the petitioners, therefore, to my mind, they are entitled to concession of anticipatory bail, particularly when they have already joined the investigation. 10. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 11. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 12. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a CRM Nos.M-30336 & 31356 of 2010 4 limited purpose of deciding the present petition. Sequelly, if the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 2.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge