CRM-M-21306-2011 [ 1 ] CRM-M-22095-2011 :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-21306-2011 Date of decision:07.09.2011. Rekha ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-22095-2011 Date of decision:07.09.2011. Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ajay Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Ramesh K. Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-21306-2011 titled as `Rekha Vs. State of Haryana' and CRM-M-22095-2011 titled as `Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Haryana' wherein the petitioner(s) have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.79 dated 21.06.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “IPC”] at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad. The allegations against the petitioners are of cheating the complainant in respect of the transactions with Dinesh Bajaj, Sudesh Kumar CRM-M-21306-2011 [ 2 ] CRM-M-22095-2011 :::::::: Thakur, Shabana wife of Yousuf Khan, Ajay Bhatti and Smt. Santosh Vasisth wife of Late Kanwar Dutt Vasisth. The modes operandi of the petitioners was to prepare forged agreement to sell to induce the complaint that they have got a transaction of land which can be further sold. They had also allegedly shown plots to the complainant in the safe zone which have been ultimately found to be under the road widening. The petitioners were on interim bail, but the learned State Counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the custody of the petitioner(s) is required for thorough investigation of this case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record in detail, I am of the view that this case requires custodial interrogation and hence, the present bail applications are hereby dismissed, but anything observed hereinbefore shall not be construed to be an observation of this Court on the merits of the case. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. September 07, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE