In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.2622 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:29.1.2009 Rajinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.’ – for short) has been filed seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ – for short). The FIR (Annexure-P.1) in the case has been registered on the complaint of Amrik Singh. It has been alleged that the petitioner by conniving with Amarjit Singh had represented that the latter was owner of a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in Kehar Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. The complainant was induced to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 17.4.2007. Thereafter, another amount of Rs.3 Lacs was taken from the complainant on 25.4.2007. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- out of the Rs.3 Lacs was paid in cash and Rs.50,000/- by pay order and Rs.1 Lac by cheque. Later, it was found that, in fact, Amarjit Singh was not the owner of the said plot. In this manner, the complainant has alleged that a fraud has been committed with him and Rs.4,50,000/- was surreptitiously taken from him. Cr. Misc.-M No.2622/2009 [2] The case of the petitioner is that the involvement of the petitioner is a deep rooted conspiracy in order to put pressure on him to be a witness against Amarjit Singh and give evidence in favour of the complainant by distorting the facts. It is submitted that the father of the complainant-Amrik Singh and his brother were running a factory M/s Bala Pritam Engineering Works Ltd. at Industrial Area, Ludhiana. The petitioner was working with them and he did not know the complainant earlier to this. The amount that is said to have been taken by Amarjit Singh was due to the personal relations between the complainant and said Amarjit Singh. The complainant, it is submitted is working as a Superintendent in the PWD Department and Amarjit Singh, co-accused of the petitioner is working as a driver in the B.D.P.O. office. Said Amarjit Singh had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the marriage of his daughter as he was in financial crisis. The agreement to sell was written by the petitioner at the instance of the complainant and no marginal witness was asked to sign the agreement to sell dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure-P.2). The petitioner had no knowledge about the plot. It is alleged that the allegations as made in the FIR that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.20,000/- is not correct. In fact, the amount was withdrawn from Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Ludhiana shown to be self and this amount was handed back to the complainant as his wife was suffering from illness and he had asked the petitioner to bring the amount from the Bank. It is also submitted that the matter is of civil nature and DSP, Economic Offences Wing, Ludhiana conducted an inquiry who also opined the matter to be of civil in nature. It is submitted that the remedy available to the complainant is to get the sale deed executed through Cr. Misc.-M No.2622/2009 [3] Court. The inquiry report dated 22.5.2008 (Annexure-P.3) has been placed on record. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither beneficiary nor the seller but he has been involved as he was a witness to the agreement to sell written by him at the instance of the complainant. It is also submitted that the petitioner had already joined the investigation when the FIR was registered initially and, therefore, his custody is not required. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that before the learned Sessions Judge, the stand that was taken by the petitioner and his co-accused Amarjit Singh was that Amarjit Singh had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- for the marriage of his daughter. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that during the course of arguments it transpires that marriage was solemnized in January 2007 whereas the agreement was executed in April 2007. Besides, some payments have been made by demand draft and cheque. Therefore, it was observed that it could not be said that the applicant had received only a sum of Rs.50,000/- as loan from the complainant. The stand that now has been taken is that the amount was withdrawn from Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Ludhiana and was given to the complainant as his wife was suffering from illness and the complainant himself had asked the petitioner to bring the amount from the Bank. The present is a different stand that was taken before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the agreement dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure-P.2) Amarjit Singh, co-accused of the petitioner has stated that one plot measuring 300 sq. yards was purchased by him through one Mohinder Singh son of Gurbachan Singh son of Jhanda Singh, resident of Jassian on agreement to sell which is dated 29.8.1989 and he had agreed to sell the same to Amrik Singh for sale consideration of Rs.5 Lacs out of Cr. Misc.-M No.2622/2009 [4] which Rs.1,50,000/- was received in cash. The remaining amount was to be paid within 50 days and Rs.50,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed. In case the seller Amarjit Singh resiles from the statement, the same could be executed through the Court.. The petitioner is a witness to the said agreement dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure-P.2). The petitioner though is not a beneficiary of the plot, however, the allegations against him are that he connived with Amarjit Singh. Besides, the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from the account of the complainant which, however, the petitioner states that the complainant had asked him to bring from his bank as he needed the amount for the treatment of his wife who was suffering. However, the petitioner himself has taken the stand that earlier to this the petitioner did not know the complainant Amrik Singh. Besides, there are allegations in the FIR against the petitioner that he represented himself as a property dealer and he asked the complainant to bring the amount besides repeatedly asked for his commission. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the involvement of the petitioner, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Custodial interrogation would be qualitatively more elicitation oriented, besides, grant of pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in nature. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 29, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*