Crl.M.No.M-32370 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-32370 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 30, 2010 Rakam Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Munish Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Ms.Puja Chopra, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.Nos.62234-35 of 2010 Requests for placing on record Annexures P16 and P17. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.M-32370 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.463, dated 13.9.2010, Annexure P1, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Sadar, Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 2.11.2010, passed the following order: “Crl.M.No.57572 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-32370 of 2010 Crl.M.No.M-32370 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Contends that initially agreement to sell, dated 21.7.2003, Annexure P6, was executed between Smt. Maya Devi and Mela Singh, father of present complainant, and present petitioner-Rakam Singh for sale of 63 kanals of land and Mela Singh, father of present complainant alongwith Smt. Maya Devi had received Rs.7,00,000/- as earnest money. Smt.Maya Devi executed a sale deed of her share in favour of Rakam Singh, after receiving the entire sale consideration. However, before sale-deed could be executed, Mela Singh expired. Further contends that another son of Mela Singh, namely, Narender Pal Singh also received Rs.7,00,000/- from the petitioner for getting the sale-deed executed, as per the agreement entered by his father. Further contends that however, Narender Pal Singh also expired before execution of sale-deed and mutation was sanctioned in favour of present complainant. Further contends that thereafter exchange deed was executed between present complainant and the son of petitioner, which was challenged by the complainant before Collector, Patiala, which he lost. His appeal was also dismissed and revision was also dismissed. Hence, it is contended that the dispute is only civil in nature and that no offence has been committed by the present petitioner. Notice of motion for 30.11.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is Crl.M.No.M-32370 of 2010 (O&M) -3- likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 2.11.2010, granting interim bail to petitioner-Rakam Singh, is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 30.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge