Cr.Misc. M 31758 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 31758 of 2010 Date of decision:30.11.2010 Balwinder Singh and anr Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Ms. GK Mann, Advocate. Mr. KS Pannu, DAG, Pb M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners are husband and wife. They seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of Jagir Singh alleging that the petitioners had entered into an agreement of sale of their house measuring 19 biswas for a total consideration of ` 16 lacs. Despite having received the earnest money of ` 5 lacs on different occasions, they executed the sale in favour of Amar Nath. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of execution of sale deed was extended till 16.12.2008 but the complainant could not pay the balance of the sale consideration. The petitioners had to sell the property in favour of Amar Nath. It is claimed that the amount of earnest money of ` 5 lacs stood forfeited on complainant not appearing before the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not aware whether any suit for specific performance for execution of sale deed or for return of earnest money has been filed by Cr.Misc. M 31758 of 2010 2 the complainant. The intentions of the petitioners cannot be determined by this court at this stage, whether from the very beginning the petitioner had an intention to commit the breach of the terms of agreement and to sell the property at higher price subsequently but the fact remains that the petitioners have already sold the property for consideration on 16.12.2009. It will be debatable whether they are entitled for any compensation or forfeiture of the amount received by them. In the interest of justice, equity and fair play, it is deemed appropriate to protect the liberty of the petitioners subject to their partly returning the earnest money, leaving the remaining to be adjudicated upon at an opportune time in civil litigation or otherwise. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 28.10.2010 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioners will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. The petitioners will pay a sum of ` 3.50 lacs in the shape of a bank draft in the name of the complainant within a period of two months as part of refund of the earnest money received by them, leaving the rights of the parties pertaining to ` 1.50 lacs to be determined either by the civil court or otherwise without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to recover the same or any other amount, in accordance with law. It is, however, observed that civil rights of the petitioners will also not be prejudiced, in any manner, by the deposit of ` 3.50 lacs in the shape of a bank draft with the investigating officer. The investigating officer will hand over the same to the complainant without Cr.Misc. M 31758 of 2010 3 prejudice to rights of the parties, to be determined subsequently, as per law. It is made clear that in case of violation of any of the conditions, mentioned herein above, it will be open to the complainant or the prosecution to approach this court for cancellation of bail. November 30 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE