Crl. Misc. No. M-30946 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30946 of 2011 Date of Decision : 2nd November, 2011 Satnam Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. N. S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Satnam Singh, Shamsher Singh and Iqbal Singh petitioners have filed instant petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR No.98 dated 04.08.2011 under Sections 406/420 IPC registered at Police Station Phagwara City, Distt. Kapurthala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Crl. Misc. No. M-30946 of 2011 -2- According to prosecution version, the petitioners agreed to purchase tractor of the complainant for Rs.3,70,000/- and paid Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money and took the tractor along with reaper for test drive saying that they would pay the remaining amount on return from test drive. However, petitioners never came back to the complainant nor gave back the tractor. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in fact Gulab Singh S/o Iqbal Singh petitioner No.3 had purchased the tractor from the complainant for Rs.3,25,000/- and paid Rs.2,75,000/- as part sale price to the complainant and was to pay balance amount of Rs.50,000/- only. Gulab Singh even filed suit against complainant Santokh Singh vide plaint Annexure P-2. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that there are direct allegations against the petitioners that they had taken the tractor for test drive and did not return the same. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no material on record to depict that Gulab Singh has purchased the tractor from the complainant and had paid him Rs.2,75,000/- out of alleged sale price of Rs.3,25,000/-. In the suit, it has also not been mentioned as to when Gulab Singh purchased the tractor from the complainant. On the other hand, tractor is to be recovered from the petitioners, who had allegedly taken the same from the complainant on the Crl. Misc. No. M-30946 of 2011 -3- pretext of test drive. Keeping in view the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find it to be fit case for releasing the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Dismissed. 2nd November, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) 'raj' JUDGE