CRM-M-25569 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-25569 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.08.2011 Kaushalya Devi and another . . .Petitioners Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) CRM No.45251 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-25569 of 2011 This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.332 dated 27.7.2011 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station City Fatehabad. The allegations against the petitioners are that one Ramditta Mal was the owner of 15 kanals 12 marlas of land situated at Village Bighar, Tehsil & District Fatehabad. One Gharsi Ram was his tenant. Ram Kumar and Om Parkash were the sons of Gharsi Ram, who knew about the death of Ramditta Mal. The aforesaid property of Ramditta Mal was allegedly purchased by the petitioners from an imposter, who was allegedly brought by Ram Kumar as he is the witness of the sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are illiterate, who had relied upon the adult male members of the family for the purpose of execution of the two sale deeds, therefore, if any offence is committed then it was by Ram Kumar. Both the sale deeds were allegedly executed for a consideration of `9.54 lacs which was required to be paid by the purchaser to the alleged seller but CRM-M-25569 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - no money was paid. Therefore, they had very well knew that no transaction of sale is being effected when they had appeared before the Sub Registrar. These types of offences are much prevalent in the society these days where the property of either of the absentee landlord or a deceased landlord is being sold by a fictitious person through a fictitious sale deed in which sale consideration is never paid before the Sub Registrar as it is generally recorded that the same is already paid at home. In such type of cases even agreement to sell is not generally executed because the persons who play fraud are always on their heals and are afraid of being caught by some one who keeps an eye on them because the property of the person, who is not available, is watched by many persons and the person, who is more daring, takes the cake. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case where both the petitioners in connivance with Ram Kumar have allegedly purchased the property of deceased Ramditta Mal through a person, who was brought by Ram Kumar itself, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 25, 2011 JUDGE Vivek