Crl. Misc. No. M- 32923 of 2011(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 32923 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 02, 2011 Rajender ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by Rajender, petitioner-accused, for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 723 dated 4.10.2011 registered under Sections 420 and 506 IPC in Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. He has contended therein that his father, Pala Ram, had sold ancestral land situated in village Didwara, Tehsil Safidon District Jind, in the month of November, 2010 and the sale proceeds thereof were given to him and others. With the help thereof, he purchased land measuring 02 acres from Chuhar Singh-complainant, vide sale deed dated Crl. Misc. No. M- 32923 of 2011(O&M) {2} 25.5.2011, after paying the total sale consideration of `47,14,000/-. Thereafter, he and others sold the land to Sandeep and Pardeep. The complainant could not tolerate the sale of the land within such a short span of time with huge profits. He in collusion with Sham Lal, DSP, wanted to take share in the profits, which he earned by the sale of land and in connection therewith, he was called to the office of the DSP. Thereafter, false complaint was filed against him, on the basis of which the present FIR has been registered. As per the contents of the FIR, which has been registered on the basis of the written application made by the complainant, the complainant had sold land for a sum of ` 24, 70,000/- in favour of the accused. The accused asked him to give ` 20,00,000/- on the plea that he would send both his sons abroad but failed to do so and when he demanded back the money, threats were given to him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has reiterated the contentions as made in the petition. According to him, the FIR is the result of the applications given by him against the DSP and the complainant, who wanted to have a share in the profits which he earned by sale of land. It is very much clear from the contents of the FIR that an application had already been given by the complainant to the police on 2.8.2011 and in connection therewith, the petitioner was called to the office of the DSP and he had undertaken to return the amount within one month. The applications so pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner were given subsequently. It appears that the petitioner is trying to make out a defence by moving those applications. The allegations so made against the petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M- 32923 of 2011(O&M) {3} are such that this Court is not inclined to grant him the benefit of anticipatory bail, which is an extra ordinary remedy to be resorted to in special circumstances. Dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 02, 2011 PARAMJIT