Crl. Misc. No. 5498 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. 5498 of 2010 Date of decision:- 26.2.2010 Bhupinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner – Bhupinder Singh has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the grant of anticipatory bail, pending trial, in FIR No. 306 dated 8.6.2009, registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Hissar, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B IPC. He contended therein that no offence is made out against him from the bare perusal of the FIR. Allotment letter of plot No. 220 situated in Sector PLA, Hissar was issued in his name and the name of his wife Saroj vide Memo No. 11779 dated 8.10.1990. He gave General Power of Attorney in favour of his wife. A certificate was issued by Ran Singh, Junior Engineer office of the Estate Officer HUDA Hissar to the effect that he had carefully checked the demarcation plan relevant papers, as well as size and dimensions of the plot in dispute. His co-accused Anoop Kumar deposited the balance sale price of 75% and took the possession of the plot. It was only thereafter that the deed was executed in his favour and in favour of his wife. Anoop Kumar transferred this plot in the name of Meenakshi Crl. Misc. No. 5498 of 2010 -2- Arora, after obtaining permission from the Estate Officer. After that office came to know about the details of resumption, the digging of foundations was stopped and provisional permission of transfer was cancelled. Thereafter it was disclosed that he has already sold the plot to Sanjay Arora and Meenakshi Arora. The Estate Officer filed civil suit against those two persons in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hissar, which is still pending for adjudication. He and his wife were not aware of the fact that the plot had already been resumed and no notice regarding resumption was ever received by them. The case is of civil nature and criminal proceedings could not have been initiated. Each and every document is already in the cutody of the police and the HUDA and the case is based upon those documents. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. A detailed FIR was got registered by the Estate Officer, HUDA in respect of plot in dispute. The main allegations therein are that when the foundations were being dug in the plot, an enquiry was conducted but the documents relating to the resumption of the plot were found missing from the file. The plot was resumed in the year 2002 and the appeal filed against that order had already been dismissed. The matter was got enquired into from Subhash Kathuria, Accounts Officer, who came to the conclusion that the present petitioner, along with his wife, Anoop Kumar and others, had stolen the record relating to the resumption of the plot and appeal filed against that order in order to cause lose to HUDA by committing fraud. The facts as pleaded in the petition were not challenged at the Crl. Misc. No. 5498 of 2010 -3- time of arguments and rather those facts have also been narrated in the FIR. The accusation against the petitioner is that he along with his wife and others had stolen the records pertaining to the resumption of the plot and the appeal filed against order of resumption, from the office of HUDA. There is nothing on the record to conclude that the petitioner and his wife had no knowledge about the resumption of the plot. It appears from the facts, as disclosed in the FIR, that there was deep rooted conspiracy between the petitioners and others for stealing the records and such conspiracy can only be unearthed by custodial interrogation. The benefit of anticipatory bail, which is an extra-ordinary remedy, cannot be granted in the present case. There is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. February 26, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge