CRM No. M 19422 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 19422 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.01.2010 Gurbhej Singh and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State Mr. M K Singla, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) As per the allegations in the FIR, Kulwant Singh and Manjinder Singh entered into an agreement to sell with petitioner No. 1- Gurbhej Singh for the sale of the land. Petitioner No. 2 Gurbinder Singh is the witness in the document vide which the date of agreement to sell dated 11.06.2008 was further extended. It is stated that Gurbhej Singh further executed the agreement to sell in favour of the complainant and received a total sum of Rs.50 lacs as CRM No. M 19422 of 2009 2 earnest money. Another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was taken from the complainant and the matter was kept pending for the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was not got executed despite requests. Vide order dated 15.10.2009, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for one week's time so as to return the earnest money to the complainant. No earnest money has been returned till date. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that a number of cases are pending against Gurbhej Singh. An affidavit to this effect has also been filed by the Investigating Officer, which is on the record. Allegations, therefore, are serious in nature and appear that petitioner No. 1 is a habitual offender. More over, the bail application of accused-Manjinder Singh has already been dismissed by this court vide order dated 01.05.2009 passed in CRM No. M 11135 of 2009. The allegations require custodial interrogation. Learned counsel for the petitioners fails to make out any special case under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge January 21, 2010 mohan