IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-21845 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.07.2011 Kumarpal . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.B.S. Tewatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.203 dated 07.07.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal. The FIR is registered at the instance of Asha Ram son of Baini Parshad, who has alleged that by virtue of order passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (SD), Palwal in case titled as “Mangtu Ram Vs. Asha Ram” he had become the owner but the said Mangtu Ram, who was left with no right in the said property, sold it to the petitioner in connivance with witness Parma Namberdar. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Mangtu on 27.4.2005 by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Hodal, District Palwal of the property in dispute. However it was transferred by him by way of compromise decree dated 28.10.2009 and left with no right to sell it on 20.5.2011 by way of alleged sale deed to the petitioner but in this transaction the petitioner had no role to play. He has failed to show how the consideration was paid to seller (Mangtu). In view thereof, the participation of the petitioner in the offence of cheating the true owner of the property in question is prima facie obvious and hence it is a fit case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present bail application and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JULY 21, 2011 JUDGE Vivek