CRM-M No.19973 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRM-M No.19973 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.02.2011 Sukhdev Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the complainant. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). Record reveals that petitioner was summoned by the Magistrate to face trial, in a complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 406/420 IPC. The case against the petitioner, as alleged in the complaint filed before the Magistrate, is that petitioner has entered into an agreement to sell the property in favour of the complainant of which petitioner – accused is CRM-M No.19973 of 2010 2 not the owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner never executed alleged agreement to sell in favour of the complainant. He further states that petitioner shall appear before the trial Court and shall not remain absent during the trial. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that since petitioner has been summoned by the Magistrate to face trial for an offence under Section 406. hence he should not be enlarged on bail during trial. In the opinion of this Court, in the present case, civil dispute has been given the colour of criminal nature, which is not permissible as per the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (2) SCC 370, wherein the Apex Court has held that if civil dispute has been given the colour of criminal nature, then the Court must come to the rescue of the accused. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mherte Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal), 126 has held that ordinarily anticipatory bail should be granted unless there are exceptional circumstances to refuse the same. Since in the present matter, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and learned counsel for the petitioner has given undertaking that petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of trial, hence present petition is allowed with the direction that petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on 22.2.2011 and on his furnishing bail bond/personal bond and two surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he shall be enlarged on bail. CRM-M No.19973 of 2010 3 In the opinion of this Court, if ultimately, the trial Court finds that the alleged agreement to sell was actually executed by the petitioner – accused, the trial Court shall pass appropriate order against the accused, in accordance with law. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 08.02.2011 sk.